scatter a million of them or more throughout the world. Make them biodegradeable. (perhaps their reporting connection is elon musk's global wifi)
screen

crowdsourcing ideas on this would be great. Instead of one person thinking of a class or category and then saying screen a library to find possible EM epigenetics, a screenable library of completely ne ideas can be generated with crowsdourcing. Here at
the ghalfbakery of course, someone might suggest parasites, viruses, and bacteria that preferentially colonize the electric organs of electric eels. There is something they like about electricity. ANother person might say, get bacterial cultures from
the surfaces of EM rich humming powerstations in rainforest countries. They might be covered with bacteria that make some preexisting, or newly developed use for em.

Others would say, why not just make it: link an EM sensing peptide or protein to a rigged ribosome, such that the rigged ribosome makes a particular loop, not terminating linearity of mRNA, whenever EM triggers the EM respponsive protein now attached to
that ribosome. Crude, but you could get a yeast to make something on purpose, anytime it was near a certain kind of EM. I have not heard of an upper bound to copy n paste genetic engineering. Has anyone yet tried simply putting 100,1000,10,000,100,000
duplicate statements into a genome, and finding out how it is possible to do that with and have the thing still run?

Like with automation and microfluidics, 100-1 million DNA code variants on a protein, like a fluorescent protein, a light emitting protein, a fluorophore, and a light absorbing protein (rhosopsin); If you’ve already verified 1 million copy n paste
functions can be made in yeast, and all will still execute (run, make protein) then you can microfluidically make a library in a single yeast, grow a bunch of it, stimulate it, and screen the library for something that benefits people.

So, 1 million copy n paste variants on the first EM responsive protein they can find or make;
make a yeast flask culture out of it and do microfluidics, bradcast EM of different waveforms and frequencies at part of the microfluidic path, not change with flow cytometry to GFP output, organisms size, budding, longevity; Then you have a successful,
we made 10-1 million different frequencies able to address a yeast. Then with 10-1 million parallel EM frequencies to talk to the yeast

you make a yeast artificial chromosome, so a little stretch of a normal yeast DNA is under direction of 1 of the million parallel frequencies. You verify itworks by broadcasting EM, and then measuring the mRNA and protein product atthe yeast.

Then you use the EM epigenetic technology you just created at other organisms.

g coupled proteireceptor with rhodopsin attached to its tail where the rhodopsin has the virus gene tha makes little silver crystals. all together that makes a receptor that makes little silver crystals, the idea then is if you mutate and winnow a liter
of organisms with that GCPR, (EM at One side of flash) ad they do something new, like head toward the EM emitter (the GCPR could be linked to omething that says “swim more” (amoebas, proteus, daphnia, sperm,) and there is an area near the top and to
the side that ordinarily only 1 out of 1000 orgabisms would usually stochastically reach, and you GFP the silver crystal organisms, then at that usually empty space, a preponderance of GFP organisms there suggests, it worked! The EM is driving the
organisms function. Thencpy n paste 1000-1 million identicals, excpet for one amino acid different, or maybe one codon differnt, at each unitary organism genome, then play across/screen a million EM frequencies and waveforms to see if you can get any
other frequencies that cause swimming up tothe blank area near the (or perhaps if the EM causes more swimming) farthest from the radio source.

also: when EM, make GFP (1 minute of EM yeast or organism paused in channel) makes a certain amount, preferably detectable, of GFP, or spectroscopic deuterated something; a million fluidic channel frequency response tester can process a million organisms
a minute, so you process a billion organisms if you have 10 machines working 100 minutes, or if you think of that as an hour, 1000 hours to process a trillion organisms, 1/8 of a year, or less than 2 months.

.5B I think a lot of people have thought about this, but I don’t know if they bothered mentioning how to make a million frequency channel organism:



Then every organisms responsive to EM can be adjusted at a distance, or from space. For example if you have an EM responsive million frequency tree you could tell it to grow.

yeast artificial chromosomes, they have.

microfuidic copy n paste a million protein variant makers into yeast; combinations; winnowing;utility

If EM, then go to licken on a rock mode huns etertain

what do mammal hibernation chemicals do to plants? what do opiod peptides do to plants?


Not to be too graphic, but:

You have a mouthful of saliva and various gentle and harmlesss blobs of phlegm in your mouth. If you are like me, you can push (stream) it through your teeth (like a nozzle). The phlegm blobs deform and pass deftly through the gap between your teeth and
there is an untorn phlem blob on the other side of your mouth. The wet stringy stuff made it through intact.

Now lets say you are pushing injection molding plastic through a nozzle to make something cheap and disposable. For some slipperiness (viscosity) of polymer, some diameter of stringiness, and some outrageous cheapness of stringy polymer you can make
injection molded things, with only slight modifications and improvements to existing technology that has ...Support Fibers (string goop) all throughout it.

Let's say it works. The injection molded object, often a disposable object, is 5-10% structurally stronger because the slight stringiness made it through the nozzle. The great thing is, the ecology message got to you, so instead of making a pizza table
10% stronger, you decide to make it the same strength with 10% less material. You are reducing the amount of disposable plastic in the environment, and materials costs simultaneously.

How does the stringiness occur in the first place? injection molded plastic, and other methods of plastics manufacture, starts out as pellets. These pellets could be made with stringiness part of their nature. The cheapest way is to dip/roll coat
them in stripes of the same polymer, but a longer more-mer longer higher AMU version (stringiness), or perhaps powder compress them from layers, with some of the layers being higher AMU versions of the injection molding polymer.

Another way to do it, which I really like, but it might not work, is laser polymer surgery en masse at already produced pellets traversing a pathway or hopper during their manufacture. I'm not really sure, but if you put a little warm laser line on a
piece of plastic, it might kind of congeal and retain some limited memory of the hot 3D spaghetti path you make in it with IR light (diffraction grating/hologram).

Zero additives involved. I just have this perception that if you melt, and casually, without extra equipment, let cool, plastic it retains some shape information. So, you make beautiful 3D shapes of IR laser light that look like referee stripes, or
whatever the genetic algorithm likes best to turn into optimized strings, and project them into industrial standard, unmodifed plastic pellets of unusually standard and otherwise unmodified variety (cheap). This could be done at the pellet factory.
Some people might even want to laser up their pellets at the melt/injection machine at the plastic object factory.

You injection mold the plastic. Its got stringiness, however much you like. The genetic algorithm models suggest different amounts of stringiness for different but very high volume, globally similar applications of pellet plastic. Wire insulation. (
there's a lot of that), flimsy food bags and frozen pizza membrane wrappers, and grocery store bags and car vehicle interiors, and, a big one, geotextiles, like the cover-all-ground plastic (visqueen) they use to grow strawberries and other agricultural
crops.

They could just purposefully do a genetic algorithm optimization of string length, how many strings, string form (form: because, remembering mucous through your teeth, you can pass a Y shape, or a loose mesh #, or an octopus through a nozzle) at say the
300 most frequent uses of pellet plastic on earth to see if they can go beyond my 10% less plastic estimate to use 14% less plastic.

So there you go, less plastic around, money saved, and genetic algorithms.

P.S. a really advanced polymer chef might figure out if styrofoam insulation and packaging can be made 10-14% move volumetric, at standard strength than 2020 AD styrofoam. ALong with calling on Genetic algorithms the actual human design ideas that might
do this are:

It could just work. Individual chucks of styrofoam from say mailing packaging crumbles are actually fairly dense. Styrofoam does not make the biggest puffiest crumble fluffs it can, it makes some sort of midpoint of medium sized styro-crumble of
engineering specified strength and properties. expanding a microbead that has been lasered to have, without even remotely actually being a hoberman sphere or a gimbal, lots of concentric linked circles at it. solvent puff expansion brings these lasered-
in meridian shapes fairly near the perimeter, and strength is increased at a puffier-puffing ratio of solvent to plastic. I've seen similar looking jellyfish.

The other thing they could dow ith styrofoam is something kind of bold, they could use sound when they forge the styropellets so the styropellets are like hollow gumballs. It could be cheap, it's just sound transducers aimed at tubes, but the effect of
hollow core styrofoam crumbles is to use 10-20% while the perimeter does all the being strong for the engineering application.

The perimeter gets even stronger with the use of lasered in stringy "imitation hoberman sphere shapes" at the unpuffed beads. Perhaps combined they make 20%, individually they are 10%, and computer modelling and genetic algorithms could bring them up to
26% less actual mass of polymer to make the same strength of styrofoam (such as packing materials)

Actually, as an aside it is kind of ok, but stark in contrast. So many people care so much about environmental issues, but all you really have to do to use 20% less of anything, while getting 40-300% more benefit out of it, I think, Is just getting more
people to become math literate technology-transferring engineers and inventors, notably and importantly, completely outside of any environmental field.

If I were an engineer this would make more sense, but so much of what people complain about seems very solvable. Consider forests in the US, and forests globally.
epigenetics is not genetic engineering, but epigenetic changes can make yeast grow 40% faster. Can epigenetic changes to forests make them grow 40% faster, but, beucae you have to spray it on the tree, or at least sprinkle it on the ground, unless you
really luck out and electromagnetic modifications to epigenetics are real, and tunable, and specifiable,
cpp that get through roots and leaves,

little wells with antenna on them; yeast live in wells; 1 million different repeater styles (resonators) of antennas, broadcast a million simultaneous frequencies, but not the main one, see whichresonator wells get green; put that data in a computer (
autoscan the wafer) and then do it again. multiplex? blue and greeen together, if new frequency + old frequency, blue frequency without green, g w/o b,

So this kind of brings up: what is an organism that it benefits a human to be able to tell a different things to do? 20 the century basics; make the 20th century things library; but what else


Actually, as an aside it is kind of ok, but stark in contrast. So many people care so much about environmental issues, but all you really have to do to use 20% less of anything as a society, while getting 40-300% more benefit out of it, I think, Is just
getting more people to become math literate technology-transferring engineers and inventors, notably and importantly, completely outside of any environmental field.

If I were an engineer this would make more sense, but so much of what people complain about seems very solvable. Consider forests in the US, and forests globally.
epigenetics is not genetic engineering, but epigenetic changes can make yeast grow 40% faster. Can epigenetic changes to forests make them grow 40% faster, but, beucae you have to spray it on the tree, or at least sprinkle it on the ground, unless you
really luck out and electromagnetic modifications to epigenetics are real, and tunable, and specifiable,
cpp that get through roots and leaves,


motor insulation, crystalline, but with amorphous ultrahigh value dielectric amorphous coating so if there was every any cracking the amorphous material would flow into the crack, and be even more insulative than the crystalline insulator.
engineering, chemistry, computer ic, computer fab, longevity, longevity technology, treon, treon verdery, physics, lasers, laser, emiconductor, dimension, math, IT, IL, pattern resonance, time travel, chronotechnology, circile, eric the circle, cartoon,
healthspan, youthspan, cpi, manufacturing, fiscal, money, software, petroleum, archive at deviantart com user treonsebastia

All technologies, ideas, and inventions of Treon Sebastian Verdery are public domain at JUly 8,2023AD and previously, as well as after that date

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)