@the_q@UraniumBlazer
I think the goal here is not properly defined.
A human is just a #brain , with a #body attached to it. The question is, how to keep this body healthy, so that our mind lives longer too.
Actually, if we have the ability to properly separate body from brain, do you know that our brain can live forever ?
So your proposal is transhumanism. Replacing the human body with something different. This is a very interesting discussion for futurology, but I am unaware of any advances in this field.
What kind of egomaniac thinks they’re so important that continuing to live is a good idea?
So if I break into your house and try to kill you, would you be an egomaniac to resist? If you get a heart attack and if you rush to the hospital to get yourself treated, are you an egomaniac?
Should we hope to get drugs/treatment to cure this in the next 10/30/50 years?
I sure hope not. What a shit show that would be. People need to die, it’s just part of life. Assuming it would even be possible, don’t think for a second us normies would be eligible. This would be for Trump, Musk, Bezos, etc. I couldn’t imagine how it would impact resources and population overtime.
Sinclair is ok. He wrote a book called “lifespan” that’s pretty well regarded. Also look up Aubrey de Grey. His book, Ending Aging, is also good. He himself is problematic though. If you’re interested in this sort of tech, also look up the SENS foundation (I donate there).
Fair warning, most everything focuses on increasing healthspan, not lifespan. I.e. Being able to be active and alert at 90. There’s no way for tech to guarantee an increase in lifespan within our lives, because we would need a few generations of evidence to guarantee that. So at most you’ll get partial evidence and animal models. But you gotta start somewhere. And if we’re lucky, we’ll stop be around for the ‘proof’ in 200 years :-)
Wouldn’t healthspan and lifespan go hand in hand tho? Like… I can’t imagine a 99 year old going for a marathon today and just dropping dead tomorrow due to old age. Wouldn’t an increased healthspan also include an increased lifespan?
Probably? I think the difference is the reasearch is going into meaningful things, such that would keep you healthy rather than just alive. I think it’s just a matter of semantics though.
Science has known for years that the fewer calories you ingest, the slower you age. Metabolic processes induce a lot of wear and tear.
As far as reversing aging, the protein thing may have some merit, but I would remain skeptical for now. My 2-cent guess is that truly reversing aging will involve some unholy cocktail recipe of stem cells, genetic manipulation using CRISPR, lots of fasting, and maybe some advanced vaccines (we’re learning vaccines can train the immune system to do all sorts of interesting things beyond fighting infections).
yes you can do this, however notice: this is wasteful as you have to run pump and heat from steam condensing is not recovered. You can heat up incoming water with condensing steam - this is called vapour recompression distillation. alternatively you can use heat pump to move heat around
You’re thinking of gases. In condensed phases energy is just stored as a potential energy coming from the fact that molecules are too close to each other (going left of that minimum en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lennard-Jones_potential). You don’t have gases under such conditions, they condense
“The new TROMATZWAVE® technology uses a hybrid electrostatic force, simultaneously imposing both AC and DC on a micro frequency of 0.7 V to disturb the electric charges and subsequently break the EPS barrier”
This is mostly gibberish, especially the part where they describe a frequency in volts. (Completely incorrect)
Why be ashamed? You had an idea that's probably never occurred to the majority of the people on this planet, and you asked for validation. A) that's original thinking and b) that's the first steps in science: I have an idea, is it reasonable, how can I experiment with it? I think this is a fantastic post!
Yeah, OP didn’t even phrase it like nobody else could have thought of it, which is a frequent pitfall for these kinds of questions. The experts that can give the best answers hate that. It’s implicitly saying their years of study aren’t worth much.
I could be wrong, but iirc even tho you can boil the water at lower temperature, it still takes the same amount of energy to change phase, so the efficiency gain isnt as spectacular as you might expect.
The energy to change phase, the latent heat of vaporization, does decreases. Enough such that the ambient temperature is able to supply sufficient heat for vaporization (that is, boiling). The latent heat of vaporization is temperature and pressure dependent for most materials.
askscience
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.