The secret of Time Lord regeneration

It is my estimation from the analysis of DNA and its structure that it is possible to choose the physical form of a person by modification of the junk DNA. It should have been obvious to me at the start when studying molecular genetics, but as I have related previously, we did the grad course in a single semester and HOX, the final chapter, was excluded and I didn't consider it at the time.

This is the foundation of my reasoning. The accumulation of mutation in "non-coding" regions implies to the scientists that it is not "conserved" or part of the organism. This is a fallacy. They are looking in a mechanistic way and implying that life is like a machine. This is the same fallacy of mind. It is holistic in infinite dimensions. It is the quantity and position that determines its effect and as such, it does not matter that the sequence of pairs has SNPs or inclusions, or deletions. It creates variety. In addition it IS conserved, not in its base sequence, but in the amount of DNA itself. Certainly if it had no purpose it could slough away a little each generation and the organism would duplicate with less expenditure of energy and thus have advantage. In single celled organism, when extra DNA is added and it is not integral to the survival it gets sloughed eventually (In my observation).

Nature takes chaos and manufactures life. It is the principle of universal use. Life is born in the universe and if it can develop a consistent life pattern on the nuclear decay of tritium, it will. So, what better material to make life than chaos itself.

I think I can prove this in the lab with lower organisms by altering the length and position of long repeats. It is also feasible to change the mechanism of the DNA to create a static instantiation (With less DNA) , if this is the case, but it would not evolve along the same path as others of its species. .I once asked a professor why they didn't do a knockout organism with "junk DNA" removed to prove that it is just that. I got the "It has been decided and is thus true look."( MY bad, and to be fair, I discovered this research and though is was a 3% knockout it may be the foundation to assume that it is useless DNA) and so it shouldn't be tested as everybody has agreed that they are right, that it does not code and therefore is nothing. Apparently they felt that saying it had been done would have been too much effort or they were not aware. They are taking Watson and Crick's language mistake about the DNA Central Dogma DNA→RNA→Protein way too seriously. α to Ω+1 In fact, retroviruses reverse this with "reverse transcriptase" and there are protein to DNA methods which are possible.

"My mind was, that a dogma was an idea for which there was no reasonable evidence. You see?!" And Crick gave a roar of delight. "I just didn't know what dogma meant. And I could just as well have called it the 'Central Hypothesis,' or — you know. Which is what I meant to say. Dogma was just a catch phrase."

Horace Freeland Judson records in The Eighth Day of Creation: "Chapter 6: My mind was, that a dogma was an idea for which there was no reasonable evidence. You see?!".

1. The Eighth Day of Creation:^[1]
   1. Horace Freeland Judson (1996).
      1. (25th anniversary edition).
      2. Cold Spring Harbor, NY:
      3. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.
      4. ISBN 0-87969-477-7.
      5. I ♥ these lists. As much as La^Tex
      6. & ∂⌈Easter eggs⌉ that are deeply hidden.⇑
         1. For every 0x5f375a86.
         2. Newton's method.
         3. XKCD
         4. Wikipedia explanation
      7. A×B=x
      8. f(A,B)=x factorial
      9. An Ceiling Cat sayed, Beholdt, the Urfs, I has it, An I has not eated it.

---

1. Horace Freeland Judson (1996)

A book about Watson and Crick.

Horace Freeland Judson (1996). The Eighth Day of Creation: Makers of the Revolution in Biology (25th anniversary edition). Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press. ISBN 0-87969-477-7.

An Ceiling Cat sayed, " Beholdt, the Urfs, I has it, An I has not eated it."

⌈cat c's u ⇒ is a joke, but it is too far a stretch, so I explain, The symbols around "catz" are ⌈⌈ ceiling and thus "Ceiling Cat" + "Seez" + "U".

The Face of Boe hexadecimal

People who work with hexadecimal will come up with some very interesting error codes and my favorite, which was also used by others is 0xdeadbeef, but it occurred to me that the Doctor Who science fiction fantasy character ,Face Of Boe, could be represented in hex as a flag if you are using a 64bit machine. the 0xface0fb0e.

I wish somebody would come up with a standard that everyone could accept to represent the difference between O and 0 and o in all fonts. Ø Ø

Another very interesting hex is 0x5f375a86. But if you read xkcd mouseover text, you already know that.

I thought of another and it was 0xfece5 and I thought it was new, but I decided to Google and this showed up in Mozilla. It also shows up as a name on 4chan, is that a surprise?

// Build an x86 JMP instruction to jump to the desired function,
// and replace the TVector glue with it.  Opcode 0xe9 is a
// jump relative to the next instruction.  Total instruction length
// is 5 bytes (in 32-bit operand-size mode).  If base is address
// 0xfece5 and the target function is at address 0xc0ffee, then
// the instruction placed at base, byte for byte, should be:
//   0xfece5: 0xe9 0x04 0x13 0xb1 0x00: jmp 0xc0ffee

This code looks a bit scary and I think I will look deeper into where it applies. Modifying assembly code seems very hackish and If I see a NOP slide there, I am looking deeper. I looked and it is a WHITE hack to deal with some sloppy proprietary closed source code. No surprise there.

It is always something new

Below is a snap of a '.blend' from blenderwho and this is very good. I wonder if I could retrofit this against `MakeHuman` software and then project that back to a |genotype to phenotype| constructive functional array? This way I could take the phenotype expression and retrofit it to a sequence of DNA ( at least generally). I did mine and it has only 42 base pairs and I don't know what that means. I did the retro-transcript analysis of the images here and one has long strings of repeating base pair triplets CATCATCATCATCAT. Very odd.

It really is so odd what is possible and with WebGL coming it will be possible to do some things that others have not considered yet. I have been thinking about the consequence of WebGL and I can imagine some applications that defy description because they have no parallel in experience. I am going to get my WebGL working early so I can test some of this on my LAN through the nfs and my local server. I have javaGL working very well and so it isn't a long walk to javaBlend and WebBlend.

Dr Who and regeneration

Lesson 40 at NeHe has to do with a wiggly wavy string and I am modifying it to use matrix calculations of linear equations to produce something else, but this is by itself very entertaining and seems to keep my attic cats mesmerized. It has the names of the people who devised this in the window title. I am using the SDL version and found no flaws in the code( or the Physics).

The concept of "Time Lords" and somebody who could regenerate their form is a great cinematic technique to transition the lead role in a series, and I always considered it impossible, like a two way wrist radio that Dick Tracy had in the 1930's I think. I have come to realize through some investigation and testing that this is certainly possible and in practice the regeneration would have no practical numeric limit. The idea of the matrix at the Time Lords home world is interesting.

It would not be feasible without a concrete model of the genotype to phenotype process. For the purposes of my investigation of these things I have studied Planarian and many other organisms.

It seems to me that science fiction is loosing its place of wonder due to the fact that technology is advancing so quickly. I certainly do consider Mbrains to be a real possibility in this universe and many other things also. It is not as strange as it seemed when I first took genetics. I thought it was quite odd that I could modify a living organism so easily and create something which was totally different with the change of a single base pair. It is a strange world to me and getting stranger. Many of the tools and techniques have a synergy that is unexpected. I have come to realize there are many things much odder than regeneration that will soon be known.

I watched financial news on BBC last night and I have to say that they live in a world that I do not comprehend anymore. They speak of structure and function which cannot integrate the new technology without a radical reorganization. I see a stunned Buffalo doing exactly what it always does, even though radio controlled drones are buzzing their heads.

I don't know where all this leads, I just go there because I can. The generalized concept can be investigated in cinema, but the actual consequence tends to expand factorial and as a result becomes virtually infinite in complexity from our perspective. Waves on an infinite pond , scatter and reflect and an image forms in the surface reflections and it is ...

I know that time is not a dimension, but there are some rather strange consequences to other methods and perhaps there is something that is "timish". I can't say for sure either way at the moment. These things wash over me like breakers on a beach and sometimes the possibility waves crush me and I am thrown about like so much flotsam and jetsam. It is changing and swelling and many people simply look away from the sea. The probability sea will not rest, just because it is not watched.

I don't find the Dr Who series as interesting as it used to be, because the concept is feasible and doing it is much more fun than pretending or watching somebody else's idea of what might be. They lack inside knowledge of what can really happen. I don't want to believe in fake things that are less fantastic than the real world in all its possibilities. They are constructed to entertain and my attic cats are easily entertained with the wiggly string from NeHe lesson 40. It reminds me of the Star Trek episode about the "Nexus". It is possible to be caught in the illusion of life and die in the actual life. A scary thing and I would think it is something that should be avoided.

And don't despair, the real "Master" is lurking and what that monster has in store for you is too gruesome to consider. So dream on, and whistle when you pass infinity.

Blender and Python and old habits

Most of the Python was so obvious to understand that it is not worth commenting on. I have finished the analysis and the built-in menus is very cool. On top of that , the analysis of the structure of the vertex, and other data is far too complex to cover in a post. It takes a long time to understand that stuff and I won't waste your time by making simple statements about it. Below is an example of something that showed up in the code because I do what I always do, fiddle with the code to see if it does what I expect. When I changed the "Done" button to a new position, there were two! I don't think that they realized that when they made the code.

Button ("Done",EVENT_QUIT,142,50,100,32)
glRasterPos2d(32, 115)
Text("Export using ")
options = "Export Type %t| Mesh Coordinates %x1| Object Coordinates %x2"
ExportType = Menu (options,EVENT_TYPE,170,100,180,32, exporttype)
Button ("Done",EVENT_QUIT,142,50,100,32)

So that is my habit, I have to change everything a little to see if it does the thing I expect and this way verify my own understanding. It often shows up some odd things. Some are important. This is one of the places where it doesn't show in the results, but affects the operation in some unusual way.

Who is the real Dr Who?

I started making robots when I was very young and I had a pseudo-autonomous robot that could talk and move around and respond to commands thirty years ago. I know that people who create works of fiction want to get paid for the stories, but what value is the tale of "Romeo and Juliet" when compared with the actuality of living it?

I can now create in blender, modify in my program and deliver to the nano-machines. This was the goal, to take what ever can be imagined and sculptured and make it physical. The second part of this requires a different troubleshooting method, but it is something familiar. The image is a model of K9 with texture, vertex, normals, and shading.

If I dream a starship planet and make it real, would the writers of Star Trek be foolish enough to claim any right to the reality? I think writers and movies are about fantasy and they have no right to interfere with the creation of real things, even if they resemble their fantasies. Everybody can dream and paint images of dreams, but few are they, that can make them real. Blast 'em K9.

The process is very math intensive and the matrix and vector calculation for models and surfaces can be a real pain at times. I do think it helps me to understand and use n-Space topology, however.

Dr Who?

---

This was so funny I snarfed it from PodBlack. Dr Who fans have to love this!