Ido Bachelet and his team have made a new type of brain-machine interface enabling a human operator to control nanometer-size robots inside a living animal by brain activity.
OMG!!!!! Who can even read this....pleeeeeeeezzzzeee...let me just be a human. Remember, that old thing that just had the 23 pairs of chromosomes...that highly flawed, yet mischievously ingenious old earth creature...I want myself back....pppllllleeeeeeezzzeee....gasp....gasp....
First, we cannot see anything smaller than fits in the optical microscope. All technologies with higher “resolution” are either snapshots of a very minuscule something or complete fiction based on “images” of dead something (following a protocol on how to prepare samples for electron microscopy) - again random and very minuscule.
The field of vision of these “images” is ridiculous. And it is not continuous: you cannot scroll the image left, right up or down. Most importantly, you cannot “see” the sample in its depth - because it has no depth, it is an ultra thin slice of dead something. It is dead - we cannot observe nano-scale things live.
None of these technologies are replicable. None of them leaves the “sample” intact for another observation. Since we cannot see what is happening there, the resulting “images” are pure fantasy ornamented with elaborate descriptions. None of these technologies can offer continuous observation of one particular sample over time long enough to draw any conclusions - cross-referenced to other observations of the same sample at a different point in time (like two days later).
Therefore, DNA, strands, or whatever they call it that is below the threshold of true observation (continuous, at different time points, under different stimuli, within large field of vision) is only inference at best and pure fantasy in general.
Second, how do you “control” structuring of something which you cannot see? How do you ensure that ALL presumed components fit nicely into a pattern of your imagination? What if some alleged “staples” go rogue and hide within the “good” structure? You won’t be able to detect it - because the sample intended for the detection / verification process would have to be destroyed.
Therefore, whatever is “produced” is completely unknown and unknowable. We do not have technical means to make true images of it, in all its sections and dimensions. We are unable to make a true inventory of a particular sample. And we cannot compare samples and check whether their contents (inventory) is identical or not across the whole “lot”.
Third, even if we had such technologies, how would you ensure 100% (with like million decimal places) repeatability of the “manufacturing” process when the material used is supposedly “live” (biological)?
Please. Give a link to a peer-reviewed paper that describes a true study of a live matter in any ultra-high res over an extended period of time, re-using the same sample, and resulting in real-time continuous movie of how the affected samples change. A “proof of life” of the said samples would be nice. One link will do, although - since science is based on replication of processes - more are needed to make it believable.
I there were ever planets with life like on earth, I get a feeling now why these planets are dead now. They simply destroyed it. They wanted to be God, but didn't understand what God means, says an agnostic.
This is diabolical shit
OMG!!!!! Who can even read this....pleeeeeeeezzzzeee...let me just be a human. Remember, that old thing that just had the 23 pairs of chromosomes...that highly flawed, yet mischievously ingenious old earth creature...I want myself back....pppllllleeeeeeezzzeee....gasp....gasp....
God help us all.
Confusing.
First, we cannot see anything smaller than fits in the optical microscope. All technologies with higher “resolution” are either snapshots of a very minuscule something or complete fiction based on “images” of dead something (following a protocol on how to prepare samples for electron microscopy) - again random and very minuscule.
The field of vision of these “images” is ridiculous. And it is not continuous: you cannot scroll the image left, right up or down. Most importantly, you cannot “see” the sample in its depth - because it has no depth, it is an ultra thin slice of dead something. It is dead - we cannot observe nano-scale things live.
None of these technologies are replicable. None of them leaves the “sample” intact for another observation. Since we cannot see what is happening there, the resulting “images” are pure fantasy ornamented with elaborate descriptions. None of these technologies can offer continuous observation of one particular sample over time long enough to draw any conclusions - cross-referenced to other observations of the same sample at a different point in time (like two days later).
Therefore, DNA, strands, or whatever they call it that is below the threshold of true observation (continuous, at different time points, under different stimuli, within large field of vision) is only inference at best and pure fantasy in general.
Second, how do you “control” structuring of something which you cannot see? How do you ensure that ALL presumed components fit nicely into a pattern of your imagination? What if some alleged “staples” go rogue and hide within the “good” structure? You won’t be able to detect it - because the sample intended for the detection / verification process would have to be destroyed.
Therefore, whatever is “produced” is completely unknown and unknowable. We do not have technical means to make true images of it, in all its sections and dimensions. We are unable to make a true inventory of a particular sample. And we cannot compare samples and check whether their contents (inventory) is identical or not across the whole “lot”.
Third, even if we had such technologies, how would you ensure 100% (with like million decimal places) repeatability of the “manufacturing” process when the material used is supposedly “live” (biological)?
Please. Give a link to a peer-reviewed paper that describes a true study of a live matter in any ultra-high res over an extended period of time, re-using the same sample, and resulting in real-time continuous movie of how the affected samples change. A “proof of life” of the said samples would be nice. One link will do, although - since science is based on replication of processes - more are needed to make it believable.
No one is coming to save us .
I there were ever planets with life like on earth, I get a feeling now why these planets are dead now. They simply destroyed it. They wanted to be God, but didn't understand what God means, says an agnostic.
This all so unbelievable…