Music by 音阙诗听 like: 
But a lot of other Chinese/Taiwanese singers as well.

So you want a way to get stuff into cells, which cells? Also since you have a good understanding of how hair growth works, mind explaining it in detail (I don't have the faintest clue but I am quite curious)? Could you link the (some) studies that provide support for your working hypothesis as well, those may be nice to read as well?

Thanks!

Maybe I am missing the parts where there are actual DETAILS? How is Swanson or anyone going to disprove this stuff, like there is no detail at all... but I'll post the claims here, the whole thing is so short... 

Please note that I am not volunteering to defend this data, just wanted to get over the 'just show it here then' part of the conversation...
I doubt we need the rest about propulsion etc.

-Dagl

1 minute ago, Bufofrog said:

It is a problem relative fantasy I suppose.  Maybe we should try to cure sadness, so everyone will be continuously happy.  

If we cure aging then we will have to cure reproduction to prevent overpopulation.  Except I will bet part of the curing old age fantasy also means we will colonize the galaxy or some such nonsense. 

You are born, you grow up and you die.  That's the plan.

Thousands of years ago it was possible for a person to live to about 120 years old, in this modern age it is possible to live to about 120 years old.  Hmmm, kinda seems like a hard stop.  Modern medicine has greatly increased our quality of life, it has decreased infant mortality and increased our average life expectancy, it has done nothing to allow people to live beyond about 120 years.

I get it dying is scary, but the fantasy of curing aging is about as useful as the fantasy of going to heaven and living for ever and ever

But why should we not strive for it anyway? We can definitely put people in space, and yes curing sadness (or any part of the human condition) would be worth it. All is it only for the pursuit of science? 

We have changed many things using science, why is THIS thing the part where we throw in the towel? Why not pursue it, fix the next issue (overpopulation) on the way. Of course, this is just my opinion, but I rather see us pursue the things that now seem impossible, than to throw in the towel. 

-Dagl

Just an update, got part of it working, but stumbled upon another problem;/

Array = [5,2,3,3,4,6,8]
Length = len(Array)
for k in range(int(math.pow(len(Array),2))):
	i = k//Length
	j = k%Length
	# print(i,j)
	if Array[int(i)] == Array[int(j)] and j!=i:
		print('found one')

This is what I got, and it finds duplicates, it just finds them twice. In my original code I fixed that by letting the second loop only iterate from i+1, however I am at a loss if that is possible here (knowing the possibilities of coding, I am pretty sure it is possible, but I haven't been able to figure it out).
So I know there are a total of (don't know how to do Sigma summation here): (7-1)Sig(n)ma(i=1) = 21 internal loop iterations. Is this correct or not what you meant @Sensei?

Using 21 iterations I get something like this (I put in 21 myself but I suppose that defining a sigma function isn't difficult (or Numpy has one)):

Array = [5,2,3,3,4,6,8]
Length = len(Array)
for k in range(21):
	i = k//Length 
	j = k%Length
	print(i,j)
	if Array[-int(i)] == Array[-int(j)] and j!=i:
		print('found one')

the issue now being that i only reaches from 0 to 2, and j is still repeating 0 to 6. Could you give me a hint (doesn't have to be the full answer)?

Thanks and have a nice day!

9 hours ago, Moreno said:

Why do you think if it would be possible to stop aging in all the cells in general, neurons are going to be the exception?

Because I don't think that we can stop ageing in cells, but it may be feasible to replace them (see quote):

16 hours ago, Dagl1 said:

Even if we could stop bodily ageing (by replacing cells with newer cells through stem-cell regeneration or something like this (just some speculation that sounds at least partially realistic))

Sure, if we could reverse ageing in every cell, and have an easy means to deliver that miracle treatment to every cell so that it also reaches every neuron, then I don't think that neurons would be an exception, however at the moment, I very much doubt a miracle drug/treatment will reverse the ageing process of a cell (sure maybe in another 50-100 years maybe, but not soon). 

I could of course be entirely wrong and it is just a year away, and I just don't know it, but knowing how complicated things get, and how many unknowns there still are regarding general cell function, I doubt it.

2 minutes ago, Moreno said:

So what is the problem if we would be able to stop neuronal aging at the cellular level? 

Okay but... how.... My initial point was that we could possibly replace all cells, but then a problem would occur with neurons... How do you propose that we stop neuronal ageing at the cellular level? I mean... it seems pretty difficult, we don't really understand ageing, let alone know how we could reverse it, let alone reverse it in neurons... 

I understand that more research may find ways to stop ageing, but I feel it is one thing to reverse ageing in most organs, it's another thing to then just do that in the brain as well.

22 minutes ago, Moreno said:

In this case it is more important how neurons are connected to each other than the cells themselves. There seem exists copying mechanism in the brain which transfers the old connections to a new regions of a brain. Certain "brain plasticity". For example there are many cases when after destruction of some narrow brain region other regions took the functions of the destructed region and person almost completely recovered. I think there are not too many cases when after a stroke all the memories and personality would gone forever and completely.

But it's about the strength/adaptation of the synapses, so you would have to copy those strengths. Which is modulated by proteins, their modifications, their positions in the synapse, and RNA levels. It's not just the connections, it's each individual synapse, and the strength of each of those synapses.

1 minute ago, Moreno said:

Are there any scientific experiments which prove it? For now I don't know proves memory and personality are stored at the cellular level. According to some studies new brain cells are created until death. Also it may not be necessary to replace cells but just stop aging at the cellular level.

I would say that studies on synaptic plasticity and the molecular basis of memory (Kandel has a nice book on it, and some nice articles on the molecular basis of memories) , do definitely the notion that memories are the result of differing strengths between the connections of neurons (in my opinion). And although I wouldn't know how a study could 'prove' that personality is an emergent property of brain connections, I can't really see any other place where your personality would come from, especially based on all the neuroscience I know. 

One article:
https://molecularbrain.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1756-6606-5-14

(the book is 'The principles of neuroscience)

20 minutes ago, Sensei said:

@Dagl1

I and j are loop counters used as indexes to array. You need to compare fields values instead.

Oh f*ck, hahahaha how stupid.... I was so happy that it gave one answer, that I didn't think of it.

But now I will have to reassess it, because i (k/7) will be an non-integer (which I can make into an int, but that seems to produce a wrong answer. I will take a look at it for a while before asking again, thanks for the help and the comment catching my mistake!

Edit: Spotting quite a few mistakes in my quickly response to your answer, so I have some work ahead of me

@Sensei
Thanks for your answer (Domo Arigato Sensei;p)  !! I was typing out that I didn't understand your answer, but I think writing out what I didn't get got me to understand what you said (I hope):

Array = [5,2,3,3,4,6,8] # I should of course program the expansion but because I just want to understand this part right now, I copied it 7 times
NewArray = [5,2,3,3,4,6,8,5,2,3,3,4,6,8,5,2,3,3,4,6,8,5,2,3,3,4,6,8,5,2,3,3,4,6,8,5,2,3,3,4,6,8,5,2,3,3,4,6,8] 
for k in range(len(NewArray)):
	i = k/(math.sqrt(len(Array)))
	j = k%(math.sqrt(len(Array)))
	if i == j:
		print('found one')

I think this works as intended (I hope this is what you meant), thank you very much

One more question is; does it make sense to do this, or just use that initial double-loop? 

@Ghideon

I am not yet at recursion in my programming book (although I have watched videos about it before;p) I will have to take a closer look at the code you posted to understand it, but thank you very much as well!

-Dagl

It is basically impossible to say how soon results would appear, there are still many unknowns. Even if we could stop bodily ageing (by replacing cells with newer cells through stem-cell regeneration or something like this (just some speculation that sounds at least partially realistic)), what would we do about the brain? Replacing cells most probably means losing memories and personality. But maybe if we also find a way to read memories/upload them, it wouldn't be an issue. But both of those things are highly speculative and probably not something we will see in the near future (or ever). 

In case people mention that we may be able to upload some thoughts to the internet, there is a large difference between storing thoughts, and placing the entire neural network with all its nuances onto a computer.

Hi there, hope you are all doing well in the current Corona situation!
My code: 

Array = [5,2,3,3,4,6,8]

for i in range(len(Array)):
	for j in range(i+1,len(Array)):
		if i != j and Array[i] == Array[j]:
			print('found one: ', Array[i])

I am still working my way through a python book and a question came up that had me identify duplicates within an array. Above is the solution which I came up with and it works. But I wanted to break out of both loops, because a previous iteration of this code produced each variable twice (I did not have the i+1 part). Now I found several solutions here: https://nedbatchelder.com/blog/201608/breaking_out_of_two_loops.html

And one thing the writer proposes is the construction of a single loop (he actually just hides the double loops into a a function and then calls that function later). This made me wonder if it is possible to construct my program, containing two loops, into a single loop. I tried some variations of:

for i, j in range(len(Array)):

But have not been able to find a way to make this work. My question: is there a way to do this, or should I just stick with the double loop?

Thanks for reading and stay Corona-free!
-Dagl

20 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

What should you use to dilute it instead of water?

Instead of water? Not sure, water seems the easiest to dilute alcohol or isopropanol with

12 minutes ago, druS said:

Dagl1, you seem to be reacting in a manner that suggests I am being aggressive against your input? Sorry mate if you think that, but it's not the case.

🤫 It seems aggressive?? Not my intention, could you also elaborate on what makes it sound aggressive so I can change that for the future?

I did offer you my genuine interest, but also see I missed the ball on your question.

Changes in ploidy (ploism?) will probably not have much effect (do not read 'no changes') depending on the species (in the case of social animals which change sex, based on the environment, this may well be one reason for phenotypical changes), but I don't see any reason why it would have to cause changes (if all else remains equal, and each gene region still can come into contact with the right parts of the DNA and everything remains accessible), although as the quote mentions it may be the start of speciation. I am not familiar enough with the actualities, but to come back to the topic at hand, these individuals within the species will not have the same genome at that point. 

I do get that I may be looking at this too stringently, as we can of course say that broadly speaking humans have the same genome, but if we would be looking at the exact sequences, we won't find any human with identical DNA. I suppose that way of looking at things isn't very functional, but I do stand by my answer to OP.

-Dagl

3 minutes ago, druS said:

 

When I first glanced through this thread I scoffed. Misunderstanding about the meaning of genome. But I've been thinking about ploidy and wondering if my response is more about the genomes and chromosome systems that I am most familiar with.

From Wiki on ploidy:

Many animals are uniformly diploid, though polyploidy is common in invertebrates, reptiles, and amphibians. In some species, ploidy varies between individuals of the same species (as in the social insects), and in others entire tissues and organ systems may be polyploid despite the rest of the body being diploid (as in the mammalian liver). For many organisms, especially plants and fungi, changes in ploidy level between generations are major drivers of speciation.

Does this put some reality back in the OP?

Thanks in advance.

Could you elaborate, I am not getting entirely getting the question, although I will repeat what I said before in a little more detail: the genome contains structural parts of chromosomes, such as telomeres and centromeres. These are DNA regions that don't encode for proteins (and we generally don't really think of them when discussing the genome), but they are part of the genome. If one would have additional chromosomes/telomeres, then they do not have the same genome.

Of course, if what was meant was; similar genomes, then of course that is possible. But as the question was about the same (identical) genome, it must also mean they have the same amount of chromosomes. 

Did I answer the question or completely miss the ball? 

7 minutes ago, motionmountain said:

You are right. The original statement was sloppy.

A strand is a nearly one-dimensional tube of Planck radius without ends - and without mass, colour, stiffness, energy, charge or any other observable physical property - randomly fluctuating in shape in three-dimensional background space.

You are right that a probability distribution must be specified. But this topic leads too far. In short, it must and can be specified in such a way that known physics is reproduced.

 

 

Then do so. You also mentioned how some things imply other things, show it mathematically (give some examples that include numbers). You also said electric charge moves slower than light, how fast does it move exactly? You are hand waving, over, and over. Mordred is giving you plenty of room to include math, he even showed you an example thread. You however, are hand waving, avoiding the subject and being sloppy.

What is a nearly one-dimensional tube? Although fractal dimensions are a thing, they have to do with self-similarity. Is your tube/line one-dimensional or not? What makes it 'nearly?. You assert, assert, and assert. Yet where is your evidence, where are the mathematical formulas attached to this? 

 

7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

We live on a giant magnet and we're surrounded by wires coursing with electricity, not to mention were litterally bombarded with radio waves and light, do you worry about that?

His point isn't that though, it is that he wants to minimise harm within reason. What is considered within reason is highly subjective. But he cannot change the fact that we live on this planet. I suppose he could shield himself and his family from radio waves, but have those been proven to be dangerous (I'm genuinely interested, although I suppose that researching such a thing is basically impossible, at the moment)? He may worry about those things you mentioned, but most of those cannot be changed, while there are plenty (although they are small minority in the western world) that live without a phone. So asking if he worries about stuff that realistically cannot be changed may not actually be very helpful. 

I do realise that in my first response I also mentioned other things, but as I said then as well, I believe those to have more meaningful impacts on health and they are things that can be (more) easily changed. 

*just assuming its a he, apologies if she is a she.

 I think it is important to understand that the risks are minimal, additionally the risks, of YOU having a phone, on your family, was not researched. I suppose it is up to everyone to minimise risk the way they see fit, however from a pragmatic standpoint you could do more harm than good (if you would not allow your family/kids to have a phone); imagine that not having a phone could be stressful when children grow up due to most other ones having a phone. This stress will have detrimental effects on their development, and may induce changes in diet which could have more effects on their health than having allowed them a phone.

Not saying that this IS what happens/would happen, but it is important to think through all the possible effects. The risk, if it exists, is tiny (significant is often misused, a change from 10.000.000 10.000.001 can be significant, if we test a lot (lets say 100000000000000 times). Significance says something about the statistical likelihood (it is not just 'randomness', although that does play a role). 

In my opinion, this type of reaction seems to making life needlessly difficult, with people having a harder time to reach you, which may affect them in detrimental ways. But it is of course up to you. I would personally focus on diet and other things which have more meaningful impacts. Probably not eating meat, not drinking alcohol, not smoking, making sure you exercise daily (but again not too much), making sure you do things which make you happy and reducing stress for you and your family can be much more meaningful.

It is very admirable that you want to protect your family (like everyone should), but one could ponder where to draw the line. You say it is not practical to be without car, which definitely could be the case (depending on your location, job and other things), but is your car super eco-friendly? Do you reduce carbon emissions as much as possible to keep your family's future as healthy as possible (I don't mean these as got-ya's, but to indicate potential things that may have much more impact than not having a phone (which in my opinion could be much more detrimental to your life than the small benefits you gain.)).

Note that there is of course the additional argument (against (smart)phones)) that having a phone could lead to more internet-addiction and less attention spans, but there again, one should weigh ALL the possibilities before haphazardly changing their lifestyles. It remains good to be aware of possible dangers, but please note that  stress and not being happy (= decreased happiness) have real and larger impacts on your life than the possible increase in glioma. 

-Dagl

1 hour ago, Duda Jarek said:

ps. It is usually assumed that there are nearly no ribosomes in cytozol (?) - that some viruses have these complex capsides e.g. using pH difference to get into the nucleus ... so is the above diagram correct, or does coronavirus RNA have to get to ER or nucleus first?

I asked a similiar question, in short, ribosomes start of in the cytosol, when translation starts a subpopulation of those ribosomes will move to the ER.

Quote

3) technically all eukaryotic ribosomes are cytosolic- they are either free or associated with a membrane. The pathways proteins can take are complex but they can e.g. be directed via endosomal pathways to the Golgi. However, proteins synthesized in the cytosol can also be directed to the ER and from there to the Golgi. There are also a number of non-canonical vesicular pathways, but let's just say that understanding intracellular protein trafficking requires serious reading.

4) There are again multiple models for how ER-localized translation works. In the classical, mRNA-ribosomal complexes are directed to the ER after initiation utilizing so called signal recognition particles. In other words, initiation is assumed to be a fully cytosolic action, the translocation to a membrane occurs afterward. However, there is recent evidence that ER-bound ribosomes also produce non-membrane targeted (i.e. cytosolic) proteins, which challenges some prior assumptions. As a whole, there is more recognition of ribosomal dynamics, which respond to a vast number of cellular cues (such as stress).

by CharonY

Beautiful low-res picture; answer to your very in-depth question; maybe? 

It helps to explain what 10th dimensional effects are, what you mean by microscopic levels and what exactly you mean by 'at work'...

This is a discussion forum...

9 hours ago, michel123456 said:

The concept goes like this: you have a completely random distribution of objects (particles, planets, stars, galaxies) sprayed over space & over time. Inside this totally random distribution, the planet Earth & us the observers. The only stars & galaxies that we can observe are those that lie exactly at the correct distance & time to us. (in a conventional spacetime diagram, all the O.U. lies on the down diagonals that cross at the observer). All the others object (the huge majority) are not observable. If all the objects of this random distribution slide in time together with us at the same pace, then we are condemned to observe constantly the same O.U.

Ignoring basically everything else, according to this, someone in Andromeda could be in a different timestate (I don't know what to call it, out of sync?) from us? What makes time go faster and slower (other than gravity and its influence on space-time, but that doesn't exist in your concept so well.. ye). If humanity colonises other galaxies, you speculate (again, I see no reason to make space-time a more difficult concept) that some colonists can suddenly find themselves in a different universe where that didn't happen? If not everything progresses at the same time, and this progression is even variable, then we should CONSTANTLY go out of sync with the rest of the universe. 
At least you put a, sort of, verifiable statement in the speculation. It is however not observed that we randomly see things popping in and out of space-time. Additionally the logic behind this 'slow fading' seems flawed within your idea.

If there are (in)finite universes, and their interaction (seeing them as you described with a static vs non-static observable universe), then why a slow vanishing. Are you saying that galaxy A that is currently in sync with us, and now gets out of sync, will therefore produce less photons (or less energetic ones), correlated to the amount of out of sync we are with that galaxy. Shouldn't we just see everything pop in and out of existence. Either way, neither is observed. Nor does this fall easily within GR (I think, plenty of people more knowledgeable about that have already commented).
And while I personally feel Occam's Razor is a kind of meh argument for truly saying anything, one should ask: we have a perfectly valid, working and quite logical (to most people) hypothesis of the nature of space and time. Your ideas seem overly complicated, rely on so many assumptions and interactions, and rely on observations which we DO NOT SEE. So... your hypothesises is falsified right? (until at some point we DO see your predictions, but right now, up until that point, there is no reason to believe this other than personal faith)

18 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

No, the universe in the future is not ours, it is a different universe. say we are at T=0, the other universe is at T=1, When we will be at T=1, the other universe will be at T=2, and so on. The other universe will always be one step forward. A different universe with different stars, different particles & different outcomes.

what. So how can you even speak of T = 0 or T = 1 for these universes. Also... Why? I mean... what is different about that universe? Also how do you know this? In one of the other threads where you also talked about this you mentioned that we can't know anything about the time coordinates ('we can't know if they are full') so then stick to that logic? If it is unknowable (according to you) then your own speculation is also equally as unknowable. 

Additionally; there is one path in the snow, can you have crossed it in the past? no of course not. The example about paths crossing in the snow keeps ignoring what people are telling you over and over (but in different words): there is only one composition for each specific combination of space and time coordinates.  (I typed this with quite a lot confidence but I hope I understood what other people have been saying, otherwise I will gladly reread the whole thread if I misinterpreted this point).

I don't think I can fully understand what you are having difficulties with per understanding, but it sounds like your ideas allow for a past that can be changed (and thus causality is non-existent?). 

Since you aren't an observer that is outside of the these 'parallel' universes, how do you know? I could say there is only 1 parallel universe that we oscillate between (whatever that means) and it is equally provable (from my point of view): not

Tim, I didn't read EVERYTHING here, but I think we need to take some facts into account, your thought experiment has certain assumptions that (if true) do make for some very weird interactions. 

Let's only think of the light as discrete photons and don't add in wave-duality.
Photons go in straight lines.
Only photons that reach our eyes can be seen.

Photons won't randomly turn, but when they go through something such as air (many particles), some photons will interact with the air and bounce in other directions.
That means, if there are no particles in between point A and point B, the photons keep going straight and if the laser isn't pointing into your eye, you won't see it.
I am adding some numbers that I think I saw in the thread, their accuracy isn't relevant (a few zero's extra or more won't change much). 

Let's say our beam of photons is 10¹⁹ photons/second. That is 10¹⁶ every millisecond or 1/1000th of a second.  The air is constantly moving, and there are many particles in the air for the light to scatter onto, so it's not too hard to imagine it scattering in 360 degrees. 
Even if only 1% of the light scatters over said distance, that is 10¹² every 1/1000th of a second. 

These photons ARE detracting from the amount of photons in the beam. But the amount is so minimal that for us observes it seems like there is no difference (when talking about air, and distances that aren't too far). 
When you shine light through thick fog, the light that 'comes out' on the other side, is less strong than without the fog right?
The same happens in air, but so little of the total light is scattered that it may not seem like any has scattered.

If I shine a laser through 100 meters of vacuum, or through 100 meters of air and measure how many photons reach the other end per second, then the laser through air will have lost some photons to scattering.
The scattering itself is independent of whether there are observes (people, we aren't talking about observers in the sense of the observer effect. Each gas particle that the photon beam interacts with, would be considered an 'observer' in the quantum sense, but I don't think this is relevant) I hope I use the terminology correctly for quantum observers in relation to the air particles, if other members could correct me on this, that would be great!

Now the thing that you say about these 'holes' that will form where no photons will go (as more and more scatter), is (I think, but I could be wrong) true, however since the scattering is random, and people don't see 1 static picture but observe over time, those gaps will sometimes be filled (and other gaps will form). Additionally, over small distances such as the scales of our planet, those 'gaps/holes' where for brief moments there are no photons, will be so small (much smaller than our eyes), so that it doesn't really matter on these scales. 

But with a finite amount of photons, and great enough distances, eventually only 1 photon would reach you. It is just that in the thought experiment you have constructed, the distances are way too small for the amounts of photons that there are.

Hope this helps and hopefully I didn't say anything wrong/incorrect

-Dagl

23 minutes ago, nec209 said:

 

That not really the big problem because if you look at this that is lot of money

How much money is spent on cancer research per year?

https://www.quora.com/How-much-money-is-spent-on-cancer-research-per-year?share=1

That is 2012 stats that still lot of money.

Yet people are still dying today so how much progress really have been made in the past 5 to 10 years.

Looking at 2010 to 2020 really how much progress really been made.

 

A lot, like a LOT of progress has been made. Our understanding increases a lot, some cancers are treatable while they weren't, others have higher recovery rates. We are also getting much better at characterising specific types of cancers which helps with treatment. New drugs have been developed, although they still have many side effects.

One thing to separate is the amount of progress versus the effects you see in hospitals; medicine (the parts patients get to see/feel the effects of) goes slowly since a lot has to be tested, retested, checked and tested.

On 3/7/2020 at 7:09 AM, Sensei said:

In each person with cancer, cancer is unique. Random mutation in random place of DNA chain. If you have two woman with breast cancers, the only common thing is placement in the body and general name.

DNA doesn't mutate completely randomly though, some regions are more prone to mutations (or less prone to successful repair) than others. In addition, many cancers do share similar mutations and the genes involved in a specific type of cancer are (generally, not always) part of specific pathways. 

On 3/7/2020 at 7:09 AM, Sensei said:

You seem to be thinking or suggesting that it is illness like any other and there will be drug (vaccine?) which will cure them all..

Although I am currently highly sceptical of both the mechanism and (therefore) the validity of this paper, the following paper does claim to have found a way of targeting and killing cancer cells specifically. But right now there is a need of this being reproduced and preferably tested in other conditions and then later (maybe, if everything seems promising, even when done by other groups) in humans. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-019-0578-8