fredreload

Yes. (I think.)

 

Wireless internet (and Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, and GPS) all use radio transmitters and receivers. They just differ in frequency, type of modulation, and the protocols used.

Right, but they modulate the radio wave as digital signal, not as analogue right?

 

You don't have to transmit as digital bits. You could use amplitude (or frequency) modulation where there are 10 different levels representing the values 0 to 10, for example. The problem is it becomes increasingly difficult to detect exactly what value is bign transmitted. It is much easier to detect "high" vs "low", which is why digital signals are so commonly used. But you can encode multiple bits per clock cycle (as QAM does).

 

Compression may help. But you have to take into account the time taken to compress and decompress data, if you want to transmit stuff in real time. Algorithms like ZIP require the entire data to be present and then compressed; you can't do it "on the fly" (there are other algorithms that are better suited to that - MPEG, MP3, etc).

Something like radio wave and radio receiver except convert it to wireless internet

https://documentation.meraki.com/MR/WiFi_Basics_and_Best_Practices/Wireless_Fundamentals%3A_Modulation

Right, my bad, I just thought this seems computer science ish. I'd favor Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (QAM), althought I'm not sure what varying degree of amplitude it could generate

P.S. Compression is a good idea, my idea is that transferring of data does not need to be in bit form, because all you do is transferring data, and once it's done you can just decode it, it can be in Arabic numbers or something, haven't thought it through

So I took an interest into signal modulation and I have not look into it yet. Pretty much for a signal you are able to modulate it, but to what degree? For a single wavelength you have amplitude and to what degree can the signals be passed and encoded? Also for the regular wireless internet, how is the signal passed and how can it be improved. I want to jeep the most amount of data into a single wavelength and I want to know how to do that. I'll look more into it tomorrow. Strange if you are reading this you get a head start

 

I'm not sure that latency makes any sense in the case of GPS. There is no signal being sent and returned. So how do you define latency?

Sigh nevermind, I thought we can get like free wireless internet with the GPS technology, but GPS isn't technically connected to the internet, I'll leave it at this, feel free to visit my unbreakable DNA post at the speculation forum

 

 

Completely different.

 

Satellite internet uses communication satellites to provide two-way communication so that the user's computer can send a requests to the web, for example, and then receive the web page back. When you access a web page there are multiple backwards and forwards communications as the browser requests each bit of information required to display the page.

 

GPS satellites just broadcast their orbits continuously. They never interact with GPS receivers. Receivers are just receivers, they never transmit.

GPS seems to have a lower latency then satellite internet?

 

That doesn't make much sense. GPS satellites are only designed to receive updates from the base stations that you mentioned. How would building a satellite on Earth help?

Alright well explain to me them, what is the difference between GPS and satellite internet? They are the same thing right?

 

 

What?

We build satellite on earth, then the satellite in the sky will have to receive earth satellite's GPS

 

 

I don't see how that is relevant.

 

 

What "light transmission"?

 

Getting a position is not enough. Accessing the internet is a two way process.

Reverse satellite, we build satellite on earth

GPS is not designed for two way communication. There is no way for it to receive requests from GPS receivers. And the system doesn't have the bandwidth to send much more information than it currently does: each satellite constantly broadcasts its orbital parameters and, regularly, the data for all the satellites (so the receiver knows how to find others more efficiently than the "blind" search that it has to do for the first).

There are satellite phones which would be a better technology to use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_Internet_access

Thanks for the reply Strange. Well for sending information back to the satellite, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System

The SECOR system included three ground-based transmitters from known locations that would send signals to the satellite transponder in orbit.

What I originally had in mind is the light transmission, not the radio transmission, but then all you need is a point and then you can blink it on or off, 0 or 1

P.S. I'm saying this like every Pokemon can get an internet connection as long as they get a position, how much are they charging for satellite internet?

You receive signal from the satellite as a constant stream of data with a receive and get free internet, it's only a concept though

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/science/your-body-is-younger-than-you-think.html?_r=0

Right well, I agree that different tissue type might have a different division rate, but if we look the arm for example, my left arm does not age older then my right arm normally. It can be bigger, but they generally do grow at the same rate. And don't show me a picture of someone with two different aging arms I'm saying normal cases.

P.S. My speculation is, if similar cells age at the same rate, then they must be controlled, not damaged

P.S. Programmed theory of aging, I'm surprised we haven't found that gene

I think you are thinking that cells are all damaged at the same rate, which is not the case. Basically random.

Really? That does not make much sense to me. That means parts of my body would age faster than other parts of my body. Where is this information from?

P.S. Hmm it seems you just proved that it's not possible = =

 

The actual cells are different IIRC. I will return with a citation if I find it. IIRC, maternal cells enter the embryo during pregnancy and embryonic cells enter the mother and, in certain cases in animals, had a protective effect. Awesome and beautiful. However, and this also needs citations, some forms of electromagnetic radiation damage DNA in germ cells. Keep the ideas coming and keep posting them in Speculations.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2633676/

 

I cannot verify the scientific accuracy of the following. I can only present it:

 

 

Right, I really have to sleep now.

 

Hmm, what I really want to look into is the scale of the laser scanning technology and how DNA can be visualized. I saw a clip about attosecond laser and it is pretty impressive. Keep in mind that DNA damage and DNA mutations are two different things, being near an electromagnetic radiation source does not make you age faster, speculation

P.S. Good night

Please read the quote, it is actually about stripping hydrogen atoms off DNA, not breaking phosphodiester bonds:

https://www.scienced...60518181301.htm

I am also including an animation on DNA. Look at the complications of the bonds:

http://www.johnkyrk.com/DNAanatomy.html

Right well, I'm thinking about this idea with the Crispr's molecular scissor in mind. If you check the Crispr method then you know they have a way of breaking the DNA apart and alter it. Right it's hydrogen bond, but you just need to adjust the strength and frequency of the laser, and accuracy, speculation

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060518181301.htm

 

The article is about computer chips. If you have a personal theory fredreload, why not state it clearly. This is the proper forum for speculations and psudoscience.

Right well, I posted an article about breaking molecular bonds with laser and guess what DNA is consists of in a chemical form, molecular bonds. If it's me I'll break the phosphate-oxygen molecular bond on the DNA so I can freely manipulate it. It's much easier to do and it does not require Crispr or nanomachine to enter the body.

 

Keep in mind that DNA damage and DNA mutation are two different things when you are reading this post.

 

So here I start another post based on jimmydasaint's request. The question revolves around DNA damage and aging again. About my speculation in simple term, when I was born my DNA is perfect with no DNA damage of aging because I start out as normal born baby. Now as time goes on my DNA starts to get lesions, not mutations, as I grow old, that's what the DNA damage theory says. Now this theory does not go into replication but I speculate that when I am 30 years old and my cell goes through mitosis, it produces an identical 30 years old cell, not baby cell, equally damaged because it is old. Speculation continues, now at age 30 I produce sperm and if I get lucky I would get a female mate of 28 and have a baby. Now the baby is not of age (30+28)/2=29 years old when it's born, the baby also doesn't age faster normally. This could only mean that the sperm and ovum cell's DNA does not have any lesions because the baby has a perfect DNA. The sperm is produced from the testes germ cells through mitosis. Now here's the important speculation part of two points for myself at 30 years old.

 

1. The DNA of the germ cells in the testes is a fresh copy ever since I am born. It remains the same and does not receive any lesions that would cause it to age.

 

I disagree here. Germ cell DNA is at least as sensitiive to lesions or mutagenesis as body cells. In fact DNA damage to sperm DNA can cause infertility. In addition, Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) may damage oocytes, but that is a speculation.

 

 

 

DNA damage in sperm is one of the major causes of male infertility and is of much concern in relation to the paternal transmission of mutations and cancer (Zenzes, 2000; Aitken et al., 2003; Fernández-Gonzalez, 2008). It is now clear that DNA damaged spermatozoa are able to reach the fertilization site in vivo (Zenzes et al., 1999), fertilize oocytes and generate early embryos both in vivo and in vitro. The effect of ROS on human oocytes is not as easy to study or quantify. It is a common consensus that the maternal genome is relatively well protected while in the maturing follicle; however damage may occur during the long quiescent period before meiotic re-activation (Zenzes et al., 1998). In fact, during the final stages of follicular growth, the oocyte may be susceptible to damage by ROS.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20663262

 

2. The DNA of the germ cells also receive lesions and ages, but in meiosis I and meiosis II and become zygote and eventually baby have an important step that fixes these lesions with a perfect repair, not the usual partial repair we have in our cells, it could also be that the genes are shuffled around in meiosis I and meiosis II that fixes the damage.

 

Why do I come to this conclusion? Because the baby is not of age 29 years old when it's born or the baby ages faster with a damaged DNA, the baby's DNA has to be perfect with no damages when it's born.

 

I don't know about meiotic repair, you would have to cite something to prove your point. Nevertheless, repair mechanisms occur to re-age chromatin in germ cells:

 

 

 

Telomeres protect and cap linear chromosome ends, yet these genomic buffers erode over an organism’s lifespan. Short telomeres have been associated with many age-related conditions in humans, and genetic mutations resulting in short telomeres in humans manifest as syndromes of precocious aging. In women, telomere length limits a fertilized egg’s capacity to develop into a healthy embryo. Thus, telomere length must be reset with each subsequent generation. Although telomerase is purportedly responsible for restoring telomere DNA, recent studies have elucidated the role of alternative telomeres lengthening mechanisms in the reprogramming of early embryos and stem cells, which we review here.

 

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2014/925121/

 

 

Now for the conclusions for speculations 1 and 2:

 

1. For speculation 1, if we can obtain an undamaged DNA from the germ cells then we know which part of the DNA is damaged in other cells of the body and attempt to replace them with the undamaged one assuming all the DNA in our body are the same but only differs with gene expression.

2. For speculation 2, we need to identify the step that does a perfect repair to the DNA and duplicate that process for all the cells in our body.

Keep in mind that in order to change the DNA in our body we need a nanomachine, crispr also works but we need 100% accuracy. I haven't found a DNA nanomachine capable of altering DNA.

 

I thought that different humans would receive different damage depending on exposure to different ROS, different chemicals (mutagenesis), different diet, different ages (older people accumulating more hypothesised damage, different genders, different professions etc... I think you would struggle to ask 100 women to donate their ova and for your research to be performed unless the legislative authorities allow experiments on human eggs. There is a serious ethical issue here, in my opinion, which religious groups would jump upon. As for nanomachines, I don't imagine that nanoscience has yet reached this stage.

 

P.S. I feel that the DNA damage theory is a bit outdated, everyone follow a set age normally of 100+- years of age. You don't live longer or shorter because of damages done to your DNA

 

For a short chart:

1. parent undamaged DNA + parent undamaged DNA -> baby undamaged DNA

2. perfect repair(parent damaged DNA) + perfect repair(parent damaged DNA) -> baby undamaged DNA

 

How many sperm would be repaired given that there are 300 million approx. released per ejaculation?

 

The idea is good and you posted in the correct place. But, it needs a bit more background research about what is possible and what is not yet in the vista of scientific capability.

 

Well my idea is that every baby is born with a fresh copy of the DNA, there can't be any damages on it with or without repair, and mutations are out of the question for normal cases, so it is a perfect blue print. But either way, fixing the DNA would require the help of a nanomachine and as you've mentioned, they haven't reached the stage where they can freely modify DNA. To make this even more complex, the scientists aren't sure if the cells in the entire body all have the same DNA. It would be easy if the cells in the entire body all have the same DNA as an established idea, but scientists have found different. So until we find how gene is distributed across each cell there is no way of repairing. My idea is to monitor the DNA of a growing zygote at real time with laser scanning, but I'm not sure if our laser scanning technology is there yet

I get how the Crispr matches the DNA and make the cut with its molecular scissors, but after this step, assuming you want to replace in another sequence of DNA at the place where you made the cut, where do you pull that DNA sequence from? Does it just happen to be nearby in the solution?

This is the structure of DNA. I want to break its molecular structure using a laser and piece it back together later, is it possible?

P.S. Alright this baby should do the trick, now how do you get the right parts for recombination like Crispr

Keep in mind that DNA damage and DNA mutation are two different things when you are reading this post.

So here I start another post based on jimmydasaint's request. The question revolves around DNA damage and aging again. About my speculation in simple term, when I was born my DNA is perfect with no DNA damage of aging because I start out as normal born baby. Now as time goes on my DNA starts to get lesions, not mutations, as I grow old, that's what the DNA damage theory says. Now this theory does not go into replication but I speculate that when I am 30 years old and my cell goes through mitosis, it produces an identical 30 years old cell, not baby cell, equally damaged because it is old. Speculation continues, now at age 30 I produce sperm and if I get lucky I would get a female mate of 28 and have a baby. Now the baby is not of age (30+28)/2=29 years old when it's born, the baby also doesn't age faster normally. This could only mean that the sperm and ovum cell's DNA does not have any lesions because the baby has a perfect DNA. The sperm is produced from the testes germ cells through mitosis. Now here's the important speculation part of two points for myself at 30 years old.

1. The DNA of the germ cells in the testes is a fresh copy ever since I am born. It remains the same and does not receive any lesions that would cause it to age.

2. The DNA of the germ cells also receive lesions and ages, but in meiosis I and meiosis II and become zygote and eventually baby have an important step that fixes these lesions with a perfect repair, not the usual partial repair we have in our cells, it could also be that the genes are shuffled around in meiosis I and meiosis II that fixes the damage.

Why do I come to this conclusion? Because the baby is not of age 29 years old when it's born or the baby ages faster with a damaged DNA, the baby's DNA has to be perfect with no damages when it's born.

Now for the conclusions for speculations 1 and 2:

1. For speculation 1, if we can obtain an undamaged DNA from the germ cells then we know which part of the DNA is damaged in other cells of the body and attempt to replace them with the undamaged one assuming all the DNA in our body are the same but only differs with gene expression.

2. For speculation 2, we need to identify the step that does a perfect repair to the DNA and duplicate that process for all the cells in our body.

Keep in mind that in order to change the DNA in our body we need a nanomachine, crispr also works but we need 100% accuracy. I haven't found a DNA nanomachine capable of altering DNA.

P.S. I feel that the DNA damage theory is a bit outdated, everyone follow a set age normally of 100+- years of age. You don't live longer or shorter because of damages done to your DNA

For a short chart:

1. parent undamaged DNA + parent undamaged DNA -> baby undamaged DNA

2. perfect repair(parent damaged DNA) + perfect repair(parent damaged DNA) -> baby undamaged DNA

"Now why is it that none of this DNA damages is passed down to the offspring when all the DNA in all the cells are getting damaged?"

 

Aren't they? DNA damage doesn't automatically mean the ensuing enzyme or whatever the damaged part codes for is immediately non-functional. And if it is, well, miscarriages happen quite often.

 

Also don't forget that DNA is quite capable of repairing itself.

If DNA is capable of perfect repair then you wouldn't age, the repair is not perfect

With respect, your OP is what I answered. That subject is not closed unless you comment on the paper extract that I gave you and then we come to a conclusion. If you are creating another question, why not start a new thread?

Right well, I did mention DNA damage theory in the op. I just don't feel that there is a need to start a new thread consider most of the materials are already presented here. If you feel there is a need I can start a new one tomorrow

 

I don't understand why this is posted in the "speculations" thread. Nevertheless, the restoration of telomere length is a poorly understood process, but this seems to occur at an early developmental stage, not during meiosis but possibly during post-fertilisation mitosis, if I have read this paper correctly:

 

I gave you a fairly long quote without editing by me:

 

 

http://www.nature.com/ncb/journal/v9/n12/full/ncb1664.html

Well, our focus right now is on the DNA damage theory and having telomere being part of the DNA sequence we are just looking it as a whole. I'm bringing in the quote from Wikipedia

The DNA damage theory of aging proposes that aging is a consequence of unrepaired accumulation of naturally occurring DNA damages.

Now why is it that none of this DNA damages is passed down to the offspring when all the DNA in all the cells are getting damaged?

In estimates made for mice, on average approximately 1,500 to 7,000 DNA lesions occur per hour in each mouse cell, or about 36,000 to 160,000 per cell per day.

So I speculate that, well the germ cells contain an unbreakable copy of the DNA, ready to create sperm cells

Sure, plenty of ovum and sperm cells that simply don't work. In any case, the DNA of sperm and ovum will differ slightly from that from the parent. If these mutations will be beneficial or detrimental to the new organism is up to the environment, enter evolution.

Alright, but according to DNA damage theory, we age because our DNA is damaged. If the infants' DNA is damaged to begin with then they do not start out at age zero, a child could born old depending on how bad DNA damage is. Sure the infants' DNA might differ from the parent, but they can't be damaged

P.S. My idea is that sperm and ovum cannot be damaged, maybe they have an original copy of the DNA, the non damaged one, assuming that is the case, then there isn't a perfect repair process =/

P.S. Here's DNA damage theory of aging

Further searching I did finds that sperm comes from testes' germ cell, but stem cell still goes through DNA damage

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_repair

 

Related to telomeres and sperm:

 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/08/02/older-dads-give-good-telomeres-but-longevity-not-so-much/#.V66TtDUrvIU

 

Highlights the fact that there isn't a set length and that the repair ability remains limited. Basically trying to repair a blueprint with itself.

 

 

I find it interesting in general, the connection between the evolution of the double helix, lagging strand, shortening telomeres and eventually colonies of cells with different levels of repair capability.

 

As a colony of primarily cells lacking that ability, I think we should see about changing things up a bit.

 

 

Evidence that killing senescent cells improves lifespans.

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/02/suicide-aging-cells-prolongs-life-span-mice

 

Coupled with introducing new cells with as few defects as possible, we may be able to increase this even more. Brain is probably the biggest issue. Introduced cells can and do(all-naturally) take up residence there though.

Well, I get DNA damage and repair, but does the same apply to sperm cells? Do sperm cells also get DNA damage before it is passed on for fertilization? I really don't think a zygote is formed with damaged sperm and damaged ovum, I could be wrong

P.S. How does the sperm and ovum remains undamaged? Could they survive a nuclear explosion?