Coliform bacteria may be frequent in human and mouse feces; some e.coli that have been modified actually make c elegans live longer, “A key study showed that Escherichia coli mutants deficient in some biochemical components can extend nematode lifespan�
��, at 96 well plates, screening11 different e coli variants per well of c elegans each plate looks for muliplexed life extension in c elegans from over 1000 e. coli probiotic variants. 100 plates screens 100K bacteria in 3 months, or about 1.2 million
potential human probiotic bacteria in a year. A plate where the longevity effect is notable is then used to make 11 wells with one e coli variant each. Similar technique is useful to test 1.2 million variants of longevity bacteria LKM512 a year.
Genetic diversity in the tested e coli can come from direct genetic engineering, diverse global location sampling (rainforest floor, highest vegetated area of earth, coldest vegetated area of earth, 400 year lifespan tortoise feces, etc.)

Bodypaint that is brilliantly colored (quandum dots)
But that has reverse antibody colroimetry with things easier than antibodies: turns transparent if you wipe something on it.

Bdoypaint: proteins/peptides/groups on QD make them glow; soda water pH water denatures (refolds) the proteins so the QD turns completely transparent. makes it so cleaning is effortless and there is absence of staining garments.

One thing I like about your sending the flubber on an optical bench is that whether looking at it like [wjt] version, or [2fries] version, when you (at the world I seem to sense) make a knot out of foam; it falls through itself, but is leaves a
anisotropic record in the bubbles it it made out of. (if you overextend, don't get it, miss out and think its bubbles).

So someone really motivated could try to make up a flubber that retained anisotopy, after some path event or especially *testable* optical lab bench event, even if it is like math anistropy) after passing through itself, or being Knotted* -or- otherwise*
topologically subjected to change

anyway if the thing being tested for was completely novel, and they found it, then light and matter would have some new(!) attribute. That attribute could be awesomely and usefully technologized. [wjt] would just casually say things like if you put two
"hall of mirrors" facing each other, put the flubber between them, the usual dimming you perceive doesn't lead to actual flubber wearing out or extinction, at any hypthetical possible rereflection, however dim, it still is flubber.exists.on

That reminds of Feynman either having a theory or writing about the idea in physics that there is just one electron, but it happens to be everyplace in different amounts.

Aside: delayed quantum choice eraser, even though I'm very ignorant, seems to make it so there's a future of a photon, and a past of a photon, so that might work against having been reminded of the "there's one electron" idea.

I'm kind of feeling uninsightful, so I just translated [wjt's] new thing into hackneyed old physics metaphors and I think [wjt] is looking for something awesomer.

Like two flubbers, or

Here's one:
Transverse waves have more tricks they can do than longitudinal waves, Like they can have polarization, when the other isn't a big enough math continer/physics container to support polarization. perhaps at 4D "flubber-space", or -mere- 3D+T "flubber-
space" there are "travelling things that are equationable extensions on the math series 1.compression_wave, 2.transverse.wave 3.moomin/ocean_swell 4.flubber_travelling_thing; ---> At groovy books like Gamow's 123...infinity they make a point, extend
it to a line, make a square, make a cube, then make a hypercube, all using only simple mathematical extension of the previous thing. So I just extended the idea of wave from 1->2->3->4 with [wjt]'s flubber as extension 4

flubber travelling_thing as extension 4 of (the W word)
could be mathematically destined to do more tricks than wave.2 and wave.3 It might have entirely new attributes, just like the way wave.2 is the first to support polarization. So anyway at flubber.Travelling_thing search for experimentally, entirely
new places to get nifty effects or even store data. (like you can store data with polarization)

I'm massively ignorant, but I heard of bell's inequality, and how one of the simplest demonstrations is three polarizing filters doing something like "retransparency", so at wave.3.Moomin_ocean_lump there might be more nifty wave characteristics, and
perhaps Bells inequality has some different way of being stated, a novel, maybe even meaningful bifurcation of forms, or some kind of new data implications.

flubber travelling_thing.4 might have, not only more nifty characteristics (like 2,4,8 completely different than polarization, but progressed new *lab testable* attributes) it might have a Bell's inequality effect, absence of effect, or some other kind
of thing with each of the 2,4,8 new attributes that go with flubber.travelling_thing.4

Like as another question, a simplifier might say: ok, so you need an attribute depth of at least transverse waves to have polarization, does that mean that Bell's inequality is nonapplicable to the too-simple-for-polrization compression.wave.1 stuff, or
is Bell's inequality there too? Does it do something "really honking big" because there's just a lot of simplicity going on at compression.wave.1

If there is a "really honking big" Bell's inequality thing at kinds of waves (like compression.wave.1) too simple for polarization, what is it? Can you make a technology out of it? Does someone at the halfbakery know what it is already called? What's
it called?

Previous material at this annotation:

if you add another 4th spatial dimension then perhaps there's a new kind of "traveling thing" that has even more tricks than a transverse wave.

So like:
"travelling thing.4" -> math says it can do 2, 4, or 8 more things than a 3 spatial dimension wave. They do not have names yet. Fourier representation unknown (but likely!)

transverse wave: polarization, solitons, fourier representation

compression waves: no polarization, solitons, fourier representation

note:
*I head of about 3D+time as 4 dimensions, but when they do 4 spatial dimension as mathematicians, the math knots simply fall through themselves and can't be tied. I do not know their names, but I think I read there are stable 4D+T math options where
some kind of 4Dspace+time arrangements or loopy things or something (a step above, and complete alternative to, a knot) ahve "absence of automatic untying/fall through, unlike a 4D knot; I do not know what the 3D projection of a 4D "lasts like a knot,
but differs from a knot" thing is, but perhaps they can be printed with 3D printers or certainly viewed on a computer or with VR goggles.

What the math of 4 spatial Dimension "stable like a knot, even though it's different" has to do with [wjt]'s idea is that --->Is there anything [wjt]'s flubber can do as a shape or form that produces durability, chirality, stability, or (startlingly)
like a flubber.4 popsicle stick exploder, sudden energy release? These could all be technologized.

Plural overlapping delayed quantum choice eraser lab-bench paths might actually make such: stable, durable (and potentially new observables at) things, or popsicle stick sudden energy release things out of [wjt]'s flubber. Or, as I'm having fun with it
flubber.travelling_thing.4

so one weirdly practical thing about the size of the delayed quantum choice erasers (at the actual world I am told I sense 3D+t) (my own actual experience is that the world I sense is 3D+paranormal jungian synchronization +t) volume is that it is made of
optical components, which if they were disrupted (fluorine on the mirror zaps all the electron-sea of the metal layers) have an actual minimum size of function in picometers.

So if you change from say lenses made of some crystal that is like 40 picometers on an edge to one that is (C300 crystal fullerene lens, or even some massive 100,000 atom transparent protein crystal lens) 30 picometers to (at the protein, 1 nanometer) on
an edge, then the size of the "EM region", "arranged orbitals" and other stuff around has either:
1) less than the minimum size to effect time, that is, as a delayed quantum choice eraser component it's too small for "linear chronological progression" at the experiment to be spanned by it
2) is a span of picometers to a nanometer in which time is different
3) is bigger than the size sufficient to "do" chronological linear progression

Another way besides protein lenses and mirrors and optics to make a giant delayed quantum choice eraser:

In really atom sparse areas I hear there is a thing called a rydberg atom. Perhaps with the electron(s) like 10-20 cm from the nucleus. Theoretically you could make a lens, a mirror, an emitter, a detector a beamsplitter, all the parts of a delayed
quantum choice eraser technology object out of giant e- orbital diameter very sparse atoms. Then the different chronological and causality possibilities present at each optical element would span meters. So you would have a Meters(!) big "minimum
functional, most parsimonious area" for a time anomaly technology (the time anomaly technology is: the delayed quantum choice eraser)

Aside: if any of you are good at math, I have read support of retrocausality at the delayed quantum choice eraser, someone also published a refutation, so the experts are saying different things. Another physicist says that it isn't retrocausal, but in
their words, "heralds" material/data. What is the current state of the art on the delayed quantum choice eraser?

As a really nifty thing, and I think it could actually work, a genetic algorithm could do millions of plural delayed quantum choice eraser designs, see what the physics software said about them and come up with two bins of output: Bin 1) Those delayed
quantum choice eraser series/parallel/branched/feedback composition variations which have the least predictable physics

and bin 2) Those delayed quantum choice eraser series/parallel/branched/feedback/evanescent wave actual physical optical bench designs with the very largest amount of retrocausality, or if that one physicists "heralding" carries the day, the largest
amount of accurate future prediction.

It sounds a little goofy, but actually doing genetic algorithms on the delayed quantum choice eraser is just making a million models of the math of some emitters, lenses, reflectors, (importantly, light pathways; including hypotenuses, and XYZ axis
possible beampaths increases options) and detectors, testing them, recombining the physical components they make reference to, generating plural variations, and winnowing again. It's a wonderful use for a workstation or massively parallel internet CPU
time.

ANother delayed quantum choice eraser experiment is finding out if systems that support transverse.wave.1 and transverse wave.1 but not actual light.photons can do the same exact path as Emitter, beamsplitter, lenses mirrors with say water waves bouncing
round a science museum's physics tank, standing waves in plasma, or say xyz actuators (like physical motion from lasertweezers or laser tractor beams, but not the photonic component) wiggling a transparent actual (PMMA?) jello made of atoms. (like really,
make the whole thing out of a physical 3D gel that supports 3d+t form.moomin.ocean_lump.3 passage and reflection and splitting and detection of 3D ...as [wjt] calls the new version flubber, but I just sense the (W word) coming on.

So those are some kinds of
-thick- delayed quantum choice eraser a person could stick sensors on, and do stuff with (especially the XYZ axis plurally interconnected serial /parallel/ branching/ evanescent wave/ almost babbage-machine like NAND gate(s)/soliton (100-10,000 times
signal durability Genetic algorithm produced version of delayed quantum choice eraser) That could be made, tested, learned from and technologized into new technologies.

Having the genetic algorithm utilize the NAND gate "form" of the delayed quantum choice eraser (perhaps at lab bench version parallel paths or rejoining branches after retrocausality-causing observations they feed together to do a NAND operation) is
because I read you can make any other logic primitive out of NAND gates, and can make a functionalike duplicate of any CPU/GPU logic circuit with only nand gates. So if the genetic algorithm uses NAND gate delayed quantum choice eraser at its iterations,
winnowings, genrated output, and bins of things people want, then a delayed quantum choice eraser retrocausal (or heralding) computer could be one of them (bin 3)

I'm enthused about other people's annotations about [wjt]'s idea, that said this is a little interesting:
Someone who actually knows math and computer science could look at the minimum size of a computer.

Now, excitingly there is non-turning computation as well as other self-sufficient architectures than turing (confusedly: harvard architecture?). So, at all the known classes of self sufficent computing architectures, if you are allowed to send, at a
semiconductor embodiment, 1, 2, or even 3 electrons backwards in time. repeatedly, Or (physicist: "heralding") 1,2,or 3 electrons forwards in time; or perhaps just "inspected for value" without work or cycles, which among those possible computers have
nifty new areas of actual utility, so they can be technologized.

(that is of course if an electron can be sent back in time (retrocausal or "heralding") (DCQE is one approach among 4.5 possible ways to do that which cross my mind)



1/4 of 1 days earnings, 2020 $53/US

Emphasis: effortless use, effortless fill; causes measurably verifiable fun

Effortless use:
Securityless, questionless right click bestowing of money. If a tipjar glyph is visible (new unicode glyph) then you could also directly left-click to give a tip.

Causes measurably verifiable fun MBTI P (spontaneous); What graphics, words, and user interface cause the greatest, fMRI/EEG enjoyment of using the software when giving money away (tipping);
they could screen 20-100 right click line items like: “Like. Give. Reward.”, or “Spend/Support”, or “Pae”

Mouseover() hoverwords could be tested with EEG/fMRI:
“support our work”
“love us with a tip!”
“lab stuff”
“students”
“tip the tipper”
“you love me”
“Click and tip!”
“Thanks for helping us build and grow”




of “moneybaster”, Pae”, “DoMoney”, “ShareCash”, “Dollarshare”, “Dollar support”, “spend/support” “Give. Reward. Like” (“GRL me”, etc.)


“support our work”
“love us with a tip!”

Effortless fill up of your 1/4 a day’s earning’s reserve:

Fill up $53 with -Browser- Pull down File:Money menu item. Also have the opportunity to refill on the default browser homepage.

Fill up is egregiously simple.

Hold both sides of your card to your PC cam once; cypt, send to image recognizer on cloud, Goes Boop” and your entire debit card form is already filled out for you.

The payment gateway that processes
the debit card form: Any browser maker can choose any credit card processing company, with any amount of smoothness. Costco does credit card processing, “amazon payments” does credit card processing, and so does Paypal.

Private companies of any kind are always welcome to come up with clever ways to say, and achieve “Get Tipping power Now!” sales. They will be in competition with the browser pull down menu. Maybe a porn site says “no fee!” (Less than amazon”;
it’s alo possible that Amazon or Ebay also say “No Fee!” as it gets people onto their sites. Tipping power packs ($53, US) are also listed as Ebay and amazon items so searching for them is easy. If you can remember to type “tip refill” in a
search engine three reuslts are likely to reach you on the front page: Google’s fiduciary wikipedia-article like mention that it’s under File:money at your browser; a Youtube video called “tipping wisely”, which will inevitably have a power pack fill up link at the video, and An actual ad for someone offering a
feeles fill up, because they want you to visit their site and are willing to pay the merchant’s 35c to transfer the money for you.

This is obvious but it’s better. You don’t have to wonder about your bank, type any numbers, or visit new sites (Gee, while I’m at amazon…”

(P) microbutton for paypal, about the size of a coin on redit, or a heart on facebook. tipjar emoji, without re-explaining everything, or bothering to explain infrastructure. (P) could do something with all Bing searches, and all youtube video pages;
mouseovers, javascript support for overlay

Also,it could be a rare “public trademark” 1) paypal lobbies the creation of a tipjar emoji, but does not own it. Anyone can use it. It’s just that when it gets used it’s always paypal back end. Interstingly money is fungible, so the icon
retains meaning,


US $53 fill up at all the “many items stores” online (eBay, Amazon, AliExpress, others globally), Paypal, MSN.com, Youtube.com (notably if you click on youtube’s “Do Money” tab it is also an opportunity for youtube to advertise their
subscription service to you, latching into the financial data occuring). Youtube, the earth’s #2 website benefits from its creators being rewarded, and of course the 1% fillup fee if you aren’t using your browser’s pull down menu to refill.

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)