The system I've been using for longer than 25 years is sure to get over ageing based on 1) the balance and consistency of liquid in the body that has to be properly worked with in terms of the so-called assignment the water has to spread all over the cells within the human system; 2) RM - which I named the so-called Regenerative Meditation consisting of the 4 phases to be passed in order to mentally help the previously added water by setting up our brain to execute certain programming for an extendedly longer age to be achieved anyways in the future. I used to suffer from heart and bad cold disorders before I started this system in middle 90's last century. Today on 25 years of my close experience studies behind I don't get sick, have neither head- or heartaches at all nor fears of bad cold or bad cold as a phenomenon. I'm confident the system I have described in my PDF book has every chance to bring anyone willing to learn to use its practice, to no limit markers imposed by our observation of others who have ever achieved longevity. I seriously consider visual signs of aging to be a typical disease to be confronted at the level of mentality as well, not limited by physical work on improving liquid as the most dominating substance within our bodies. Brain is proven to be the most powerful computer. So, to make it work appropriately in the direction of long lifetime durability it has to be given an appropriate technical assignment. Brain can't implement any option unless we start altering our attitude to it, unless we start considering it a gifted software developer who has never been asked to materialize long youth as a kind of mental software in particular. By following this tandem of the physical and regular mental sessions of RM system along with regular changing our body liquid into a smarter one in terms of information, human beings can achieve bi or even tricentennial age and longer. So far people are trying to invent some external robotic devices to provide human system with the so-called repairs. Nevertheless repairs affect such thing and delicate entities of us, whereas when programming our unused in longevity sense computer, our powerful brain itself, has no chances to be given proper tasks to be realized, which leads to only tiny results that may be characterized only as pushing the inevitable forward only just slightly, without any substantial breakthrough in the area of genuine gerontology enabling people to live for centuries instead of decades as its main target, primarily.
What's on your mind?
TEXT
POLL
- All130 posts
- General57 posts
- General Discussion55 posts
- News and Announcements3 posts
- Supercentenarian cases10 posts
- Questions and Answers4 posts
- New on Gerontology Wiki1 post
Sort by
Card Layout
General Discussion
1 - Jeanne Calment (1875-1997) - 122 years
2 - Sarah Knauss (1880-1999) - 119 years
3 - Nabi Tajima (1900-2018) and Kane Tanaka (1903-still living)- 117 years, 8 months, 17 days
5 - Lucy Hannah (1875-1993) - 117 years, 8 months
6 - Mary Louise Meilleur (1880-1998) - 117 years, 7 months
7 - Violet Brown (1900-2017) - 117 years, 6 months
8 - Emma Morano (1899-2017) - 117 years, 4 months
9 - Chiyo Miyako (1901-2018) - 117 years, 2 months
10 - Misao Okawa (1898-2015) - 117 years
Just Updated
Jeanne Calment was 122 years, 5 months and 14 days old when she died and Kane Tanaka will be 122 years, 5 months and 15 days old on that day
Greetings. In last time I noticed that a lot of users are using both "Year X? birth" and "Claims birth in year X" for unvalidated supercentenarians and SC claims, most recent example was Richie Richardson whose article has both "1907? births" and "Claims birth in 1907". I would like to hear opinions of other members about this. I believe having both categories is pointless.
In my opinion, categories named "Claims birth in Year X" should be used only for publicly debunked cases like Antonia Valderrama Ocampo, who claimed to have been born in 1905, but is validated with 1907, so her article should have "1907 births" and "Claims birth in 1905". Having both of those categories for unvalidated cases is pointless. Would you agree?
Should we add people from the Bible to the List of Longevity Myths (130+)?
My grandmother turns 110 on December 8, 2017. I have found a list of supercentenarians through the Gerontology Research Group that shows only the living supercentenarians. Can anyone tell me what they need to validate her? I have her birth certificate and she is in a nursing home local to me. They could help, if needed. She’ll also be in the local newspaper next week. Thank you.
How do you think we will validate supercentenarians in the future? Will it be a mix of documents and their social media presence throughout their life (or lack there of)? Let's say 100 years from now, when the very last people born in the 1900s start dying, how will we know whose claims are legitimate? I think this is a interesting question. I think making false longevity claims will be a lot harder in the future because of the internet. What do you think?
Greetings fellow Wikia users. My name is Lance Uppercut and I wish to apply in becoming an admin on this Wiki. I have been editing here for 11 minutes and I feel my edits have been positive and useful and the community is better with my contributions. I can start right away and look forward to working with everyone.
Yours truly,
Lance Uppercut
/-\ future Wiki admin /-\
Greetings fellow Wikia users. My name is Lance Uppercut and I wish to apply in becoming an admin on this Wiki. I have been editing here for 11 minutes and I feel my edits have been positive and useful and the community is better with my contributions. I can start right away and look forward to working with everyone.
Yours truly,
Lance Uppercut
/-\ future Wiki admin /-\
Hello everyone,
I think we should discuss and finalize what kind of general information we want in the infoboxes and categories. I have seen a lot of categories added and I think we should discuss this.
Here is where it stands:
INFOBOXES
- Name
- Image
- Birth date and place
- Death date and place
- Age
- Country
- Verification status (verified, unverified, pending, claim, myth)
Do we want to specifically include gender? Race? Anything else? We could include gender, but I think that would be enough.
As far as CATEGORIES...
- Birth year
- Death year
- Birth country
- Death country
- Gender
- Birth country subdivision (state, province, etc.)
- Death country subdivision (state, province, etc.)
- Nationality (sometimes multiple)
- Verification status
On the subject of nationality, is it necessary to have "British," "American," and "British-American?"
As for birth country subdivisions, is this necessary? Would we go further into more subdivisions, such as counties (U.S.) or parishes?
I think the other categories are good enough.
Thoughts everyone?
Greetings,
I realize that there were two superfluous categories..."2016 deaths" and "Deaths in 2016"...that could have been merged.
Going forward, let's consider the options:
1. Change "Deaths in 2017" to "Supercentenarian Deaths in 2017" (only supercentenarian deaths), while "2017 deaths" would be ALL deaths reported on the Gerontology Wiki.
2. Merge the two categories and don't report supercentenarian deaths separately.
Comments? Suggestions?Ryoung122 (talk) 03:56, December 29, 2016 (UTC)
A few of the most active Gerontology Wiki users have been producing new hybrid categories unilaterally. Please do not do so without discussing it first on the discussion board.
What next, "Unverified unvalidated American supercentenarian children born in 1904"? "Validated English British UK supercentenarians who died in 2014"? If the categories already cover the scope of the issue, please do not create superfluous catgories. Repeated violations of this policy may result in more stringent measures, including loss of editing privileges.Ryoung122 (talk) 15:44, November 23, 2016 (UTC)
I have noticed a wish to add the 3-letter-abbreviation to the flag icons. The country identification by hovering the flag icon, made by me, seems not to be enough. If the change is made in the flag templates, it will work everywhere in one edit.
I would like to hear if you think I should do so. Here are two examples:
There are two different ways of transliterating non-English diacritical marks. For example, if we had "Hermann Dörnemann", we would transliterate it to either "Hermann Dornemann" or "Hermann Doernemann". Which way do people prefer? I personally prefer "Hermann Dornemann".
