nickyhansard

I was mostly suggesting that the durability of the telomeres may be influenced by the stalling of any noticeable affects caused by puberty - not just exclusive to changes made by the sex hormones. I've read somewhere (it was a long time ago) that the efficiency/durability of the telomeres can be influenced by factors outside of biological age - I may be wrong but if it is true, it might seem logical that pre-pubescents may actually be superior in repairing the telomeres through some mechanism because they never (exceptions exist) display affects of ageing, while barely 5 years after puberty it is quite common to see these signs. To break it down 1: Perhaps the ability of telomeres to repair/resist/recover from damage is affected by external factors rather, than 100% being a factor of biological age. 2: The first 0-15 years of age people almost never have visible (e.g. yellow skin, patchy skin, yellow eyes, wrinkles etc.) and invisible (like metabolic syndrome, cancer, IBS, blood pressure, diabetes etc.) signs of ageing, while plenty of people around their 20's start displaying these signs of ageing (based on personal experience). 3: Perhaps those first 0-15 years of age the telomeres are better able to protect from damage through some type of mechanism. (it makes logical sense that evolution would try to prevent weakening of our DNA until after the chance to reproduce has occurred). 4: Perhaps blocking that part of development (puberty) will allow those cues for whichever mechanism is benefiting the telomeres to continue. It might be totally of base but I don't think based on the evidence that it can be dismissed out of hand simply because the direct cause of ageing is the telomeres. It makes perfect economic and environmental sense, pre-pubescent humans are much smaller, require less food/water and generally they are in better health. Considering calorie restriction has increased the lifeapan of some animals by close to 50%, it's not entirely without precedent - calorie restriction does seem to mimic what would likely happen if puberty were stalled. This is entirely theoretical, no less different to talking about how a nuclear warhead works or what size meteor would destroy Earth... I'm not suggesting this is a practical course of action for humans but if it were true it would probably be very insightful to people who study ageing.

I would assume that the children have less protection from radiation damage but are better able to repair the damage that occurs e.g. If children are so susceptible to damage it would be likely they would have wrinkles. Perhaps not. Also it's not so much about replacing hormones in later age, because you are by-passing a large portion of the mechanisms that allow the hormonal system to create a homeostasis. I'm suggesting blocking the hormones (even other proteins or what have you that increase/decline after throughout puberty) to the point that a hormonal profile or any other test would read the same as pre-puberty (I imagine this would be disastrous for a person who has already been through puberty, probably leading to many health issues, those hormones are required to maintain a healthy adult body).

Just spit balling here from a person that has little education on the subject. I'm not actually sure how the mechanisms of the beginnings of adolescents/ageing works But have there been studies/tests/conclusions/theories on what happens if those hormones released in adolescents are suppressed to childhood levels (I don't just mean testosterone or estrogen or DHT or growth hormone. I mean ALL of them, including ones I didn't list. Much more comprehensive repression than for example a loss of testicular function before adolescents) Would the suppression influence the life expectancy? I know it sounds silly because as far as I understand ageing is due to the damage our DNA occurs and the way it affects the way cells function but I thought perhaps the DNA repair system system (which I'm assuming is much better in childhood) might take it's cues from actual physical development (not just of body parts that should be affected by adrogenic hormones). Are children's cells more resilient to radiation damage or better able to repair cellular DNA damage? Does the underlying mechanisms allow the tricking of the DNA repair system to remain that of a child or is it 100%, definitely reliant on cellular/biological age? Sure it won't result in a complete halting of age but would the DNA repair mechanisms not down regulate and the cells functionally longer lasting? I've never seen a a person under 16 with 'skin' damage (patchy spots, wrinkles etc.) things that I've read are due to androgenic hormones and DNA damage - I'm sure there are exceptions out there but I've seen plenty of people in their early 20's who do. It seems strange that this DNA damage only takes a few years to be apparent after puberty but never seems apparent for the first 0-16 years of life. Seems to suggest that the affects of puberty weaken the DNA repair system or it could simply be the visual affects of hormones but you would think their would be more skin damaged 12-20 years old (due to their extreme levels of hormones). Males who haven't developed can be given hormones to kickstart puberty and once started they develop normally without any further intervention, even if they are years late starting puberty they quickly catch up to their peers. To do so their is a very complex and chaotic hormonal balance that has to happen, perhaps suggesting that parts of the ageing system may have actually been paused (it seems logically that if it were purely based on cellular age/DNA that the person would not catch up in development and it would be an incomplete puberty).

I'm no expert (at all) and this idea is probably retarded as hell but anyway just dribbling an idea here. Would two electrical rods in a body of liquid (on the furthest sides -|_|-), so that: 1: If a line was drawn between the two lowest parts, it would reach the deepest part of the liquid. and 2: There were no gaps between the electrical rods and the furthest of the sides of the body of liquid. Would there be anyway that an electrical current between the two rods could be conducted through the body of liquid to essentially create a barrier (as in could drain one side of the body of liquid and have the opposite not be drained). I'm not suggesting water will actually do this but what about additives added that group together when in the presence of electrical current or a certain ratio of amps to volts etc. etc. I'm happy to hear a 'no, you have no idea what you're talking about'.

If you had two tanks of relatively similar PSI (one slightly less than the other). Would the compressor needed to transfer gas from the lower PSI tank to the higher PSI tank simply have to raise the PSI to above the higher tank PSI to transfer gas. Basically would a weak compressor still be able to get the job done? Seeing as it only has to comparatively raise the PSI a few points? I ask because I was thinking in terms of robotics. If you used compressed air to actuate movement, could you use two tanks to achieve this. Have one tank as the primary (with the larger PSI) and another slightly lower PSI tank as the secondary. So when you use the higher PSI tank to move a piston for instance, could you vent the gas to the lower PSI tank (which should be automatic because the PSI in the secondary tank should be lower) and than have a low power compressor to transfer gas from the lower PSI tank to the higher PSI tank? High PSI tank > piston > low PSI tank > compressor > high PSI tank I would assume only running the compressor when the primary tank reaches a certain threshold would be the most efficient way to save power. You could have a piston in a cylinder that has an inlet from the high PSI tank (primrary) on either end of the cylinder along with a relief valve on both ends connected to the low PSI tank (secondary). So when one side is receiving gas from the primrary tank the relief valve on the opposing side is venting to the secondary tank. Although now I'm thinking I'm missing a vital point. If their PSI is similar than you're only getting the difference between the PSI in the tanks pushing the piston... Lol I suppose I could atleast start with a pressurised tank and an empty tank and create a closed system... Better than nothing and I imagine still more efficient than an open system.

Thanks for the reply. Helped clarify things. It was a tad confusing mainly because people would picture a chromosome as an X but than sometimes it would be an I. Now I know it's a single chromosome and it only becomes an X during replication and pairs of chromosomes aren't lined up nicely like in diagrams of the cell nucleus (except for during replication). Correct me if I'm wrong. I have another question if you don't mind. I do appreciate it. So you have these chromosomes floating around in a certain type of cell e.g. A heart cell. How does the heart cell know that it is a heart cell and which parts of the DNA to activate? I always hear that different cells activate different parts of the DNA to produce the required proteins that cell is responsible for but nobody explains how the cell does this.

Thanks for the awnser. I have some more general questions about DNA, I know this information is on google but honestly I find some explanations not detailed enough and/or confusing. Anyway I appreciate any corrections/awnsers. Each cell contains 23 pairs of chromosones. Are these pairs of chromosones physically attached to each other. I always see a chromosomes pictured as an X but I wasn't certain if this was actually a pair of chromosomes or simply how each of the 46 chromosomes looks? I know most of our DNA is exactly the same between humans but is this spread between the chromosomes or are the differences isolated to a single pair/s? I've got plenty more questions I would like to know if anybody could humour me.

Thanks, that clears it up a bit. So technically there is no inherent obstacle and theoretically once our knowledge is great enough we could simulate the development of a person, which we could than experiment with by manipulating certain coding e.g. Inserting genes that give us the ability to breath water and using the model as a problem diagnostic or creating an exact model of what a person should have developed into minus environmental influences (like over exposure to sunlight, inadequate nutrition during development etc etc.) Or do I have it wrong?

What if we had a powerful enough computer, what exactly is holding us back in regards to cell physiology. I thought cell physiology was governed by the DNA, theoretically as long as the computer could interpret the DNA wouldn't the cells automatically be correct? I'm not certain about this but don't we have computers that can actually simulate bodies of water on the molecular level? That must require an immensely powerful computer. Don't take my comments as arguments that you're wrong. I have little knowledge on the subject. Just find it interesting.

I was just wondering if we had a powerful enough computer would it be possible to simulate the growth of a person using an individuals DNA?