Viser arkivet for juni, 2013
We learn nothing about aging in biology class until very specialized higher education degrees. And without knowledge, we have only emotions to base our opinions about aging on. What does our emotions make us think about the aging process? Usually, our emotions make us think that we can not do anything about aging. We have such negative emotions about aging that we convince ourselves that aging is a natural way of life, that we can not avoid aging no matter what we do. The reason we do this is because if we think we can avoid aging, then we would spend all our time trying to avoid aging, and no time reproducing. And if your parents spent all their time trying to avoid aging, you would not have been made. So you have inherited the idea that aging can not be avoided, from parents who are not educated in the biology of aging. That’s like inheriting a disease if you ask me.
We think aging can not be avoided without knowledge about how aging works, and the result is that we can continue our current way of life. We can continue to buy a new phone every six months, a new car every three years, and so on. But if we think we can avoid aging, then the rational thing to do would be to spend all resources otherwise spent on phones and cars, on avoiding aging. One would think this was not a high price to pay, after all its just stuff, and life is far more valuable. But our genes make us extremely interested in reproduction. And to males that mean having symbols of status and wealth. Cars, fancy clothes, phones, expensive wines, etc. And to females it means thinking a lot about male symbols of status and wealth, because it is a sign that the male can support children. So it is understandable that it is difficult to let go of the aquisition of wealth and status symbols in favor of trying to avoid dying of aging.
The reason why we easily conclude aging can not be avoided when we know nothing about aging, is that no one has avoided aging thus far in history. But we also consider aging a change that occurs in the body, not something that accumulates. We think of aging like growth, like going from a baby to an adult, and then to an old person. And we can’t imagine a way that can be reversed. Rightly so, making an adult person revert to a fetus is impossible. But this is not what aging is. Aging is not growing up from a fetus into an adult, and then into an old person. You grow up, from a single cell into adulthood, but what happens from there on in is just lack of maintenance. In a way, you come out of the womb as a small car which grows for 25 years to become a Hummer H1. But once you are 25 years old the change that occurs is just rust and poor maintenance. Its not growth, as in “growing old”. The H1 Hummer you are at 25 gets worn down for 55 years or so until you are 80 years old and need diapers. You as you were meant to be when you are 25. That you change from age 25 is a disease called aging. Growth happen until age 25 (approximately), decay happens from that point on. Aging is 7 things that we accumulate over time, starting from before we are born.
These are the 7 aspects of aging:
1. Cell loss or atrophy (without replacement).
2. Oncogenic nuclear mutations and epimutations (mutations in the cell nucleus (DNA), and mutations that affect how the DNA functions).
3. Cell senescence (Death-resistant cells and cells that no longer are able to replicate).
4. Mitochondrial mutations (the mitochondria grows shorter for every cell-division, fex).
5. Intracellular junk or junk inside cells (lysosomal aggregates).
6. Extracellular junk or junk outside cells (extracellular aggregates).
7. Random extracellular cross-linking.
These seven things accumulate over time. And for 25 years we show no sign of them. But then some skin cells begin showing signs of fex, accumulated oxidized cholesterol and a lack of mitochondrial length. The cells don’t replicate evenly, so they all replicate different amounts in 25 years. Some 50 times (the aproximate maximum), others zero times. And the junk inside the cells move mostly over to just one of the two cells when they divide, so after a dozen cell-divisions some cells will have lots of junk in them, and other cells will have no junk in them. When you are only 25 years old the amount of cells with lots of junk in them are few, but they are many enough to start to show on your skin. The first set of wrinkles appear. This is not growth, its decay due to lack of maintenance. This occurs in all the organs, we just can’t easily see the “wrinkles” there. For example the liver starts declining in function, and the liver is quite important, hence the name.
Support Sens Research Foundation who are working a treatment that removes 7-Ketocholesterol from the human body. 7-KC is one of those types of junk that accumulates in us. It is the main cause of cardiovascular disease. Click the bar at the top of the screen.
And read this book if you wish to have a detailed description of all seven aspects of aging and a possible strategy to fight each one, and if you wish to know how to contribute. The book is written for the none-scientist so its not hard to understand with lots of fancy words. Reading the book is the single greatest thing you can do for yourself, greater than buying a Ferrari, greater than climbing Mount Everest.
In an experiment where you take equal size spherical particles of plastic with different density and put them in a cylindrical container and shake it along the axis of the length of the cylinder, the resulting pattern of the particles is quite uniform. When you add a little water and shake again, a stripe-pattern emerges. This is an interference pattern due to the force between water-molecules.
If the cylinder is aligned by length left to right the pattern in profile looks like this: | || || |
If you instead of shaking both directions, just drop the cylinder from an high enough altitude onto a sudden stop, to produce the effect of one massive gravitational pull. You get the heaviest spherical particles organized at the bottom and the lightest particles at the top. And in doing so, they will behave as particles. If you add some weak force between the spheres, like hydrogen bonds, by adding water, the spheres will move like waves to some extent. And it will require more energy to achieve the perfect separation of particles into two groups.
It might even be impossible to separate the light particles from the heavy perfectly in a sudden stop. The kinetic energy the particles need to move all the way to their required destinations where all the light particles are in the top-half of the cylinder, may be higher than the kinetic energy they can possibly have. The tiny interaction between the particles, or plastic spheres in this case, might be enough to stop them achieving perfect split into two groups. Even if the container is a universe unto itself, without a relativistic universe around it, so that it can travel at many times the internal speed of light before doing one sudden stop. The reason being of course, that the faster you move the dense spheres the faster the lighter spheres move, so when they both stop, the interaction between them through hydrogen bonds, is enough to stop the groups from separating perfectly. However much energy each sphere type has.
The particles without hydrogen bonds react linearly to speed. But with the hydrogen bonds the particles react in accordance with relativity in between themselves, and so can never break a certain speed relative to each other. This speed is the speed of light. This is how we have a limit to velocity in our universe, but also how our universe can theoretically move in any direction without it affecting our speed of light. This is how we can infer particles subject to the speed of light interact with other particles in the universe (or the higgs field), or spacetime itself, through forces. And we can infer how particles can avoid being subject to the speed of light. By adjusting the forces between an object and the universe, one can travel faster than the speed of light. No need to actually exit the universe or anything as complex as that.
In an experiment you are given the choice between two scenarios:
1. 100 dollars today.
2. 101 dollars in a month.
We usually think of this experiment as:
1. Immediate gain.
2. Long term gain.
And we assume that the more rational you are, the more likely you are to choose option 2.
But I propose both options are only decided based on the immediate gain they provide.
What is the immediate gain of both choices?
1. 100 dollars today.
This immediately provides:
A) The expectancy of receiving 100 dollars.
B) The feeling of making the superior choice by some rationalization. “Now is better than later” being the prevailing rationalization.
2. 101 dollars in a month.
This immediately provides:
A) The expectancy of receiving 101 dollars.
B) The feeling of making the superior choice by some rationalization. “More is better than less” being the prevailing rationalization.
Which immediate gain option has the most value is decided by which weighs most heavily; More being better than less, or sooner better than later.