Nanotechnology (GO) is known from 2004. Optogenetics - 2010.
(media.conspiracies.win)
Comments (9)
sorted by:
Nanotechnology is the manipulation of matter with at least one dimension sized from 1 to 100 nanometers (nm).
Modern silicon commercial transistors may be smaller than 45 nanometers in size.
Smartphones today are using nanotechnology, it is safe to say.
No, that's what the term has been dumbed down as now. Back in the 90's, it used to mean building with atomic precision, out of individual atoms. Now it means "whatever the hell is fairly small and we need to hype up for investors and/or hollywood", and the new terms "atomically precise manufacturing" and "machine-phase chemistry" have been invented to cover the original meaning.
The same way "AI" used to mean something else, and now functionally means "whatever the hell we can do right now with really large statistics if you invest infinite money", and the original meaning has been repeatedly renamed and now is something like "recursively self-improving artificial general superintelligence". Rolls off the tongue...
Because if it only meant atomic precision there wouldn't be much technology to speak off. When I learned about it, it was under the definition he gave (2010).
A carbon nanotube, however long, is still nanotechnology since its diameter is in nanometers.
That's my point; there isn't much technology to speak of yet, but unscrupulous people want to apply the sexy term to whatever they're doing anyway.
By their definition, a gas is nanotech :)
Sure but people are good enough not to call it that.
Graphene oxide is 1-atom thick programmable nanotechnology.
I think your information is just old.
I've been following this for almost three years now.
I have watched hundreds of hours of videos, incl. bright field and dark field microscopy.
Not in a single one have I seen irrefutable evidence of teslaphoresis, self-assembling nano-circuits or functional nanotechnology.
And I keep reminding myself that the definition of nanotech/-circuits is between 1 to 100 nm in size.
The best of available standard optical resolution microscopes (costing hundreds of thousands, and NONE of which were used during the aforementioned videos I've viewed) can only resolve a single element down to 200 nm. The microscopes used so far by the nanobot claiming tubers are much worse.
I've seen zero functional demonstrations of electrical or electromagnetic properties of claimed nanocircuits in the jabs.
So, still after 3 years: lots of claims, the theory is there in the papers (yes, I have most of them downloaded), but so far zero proof in the wild.
This issue could be settled by taking the claimed nanostuff to actual super-resolution microscopes (can resolve down below 100nm) or even better MINFLUX-microscopy.
And giving the samples to proper electronics/EMF/RF testers who would test the claimed circuits for functionality.
But no, none of these talking heads with no training in basic microscopy bother to do it. They just keep piling up on their own narratives with zero falsification and no actual proof.
SO that is why it is very difficult to take their 1000x DF microscopy videos of imaged sodium and cholesterol clumps in gas bubble very seriously.
Graphene oxide is known from 2004.
Nano coronavirus recombinant vaccine taking graphene oxide as carrier - https://patents.google.com/patent/CN112220919A/en
That's a patent, if you weren't aware.
I am sure you can never find any proof, if you're never looking for it.
I have actually read and UNDERSTOOD the patent , you have not. It is not nanomachinery or self-assembling circuits
Plenty of mRNA vaz from Pfizer and Moderna have been tested using various analytical methods and only the Pablo campra samples contain a specteographic signature near anywhere that of GO.
Yes, I've looked hard, clearly much harder than you.
Which begs me the question : are you twelve and just spamming links you don't even understand ?
That's the trick...space so big and nano so small one cannot perceive it without others suggesting it.
Sleight of hand...Mork & Mindy aka mork/myrk - "darkness" and mindy - "mind".
Nanu-Nanu..."unless you can say no (nano) there will be no pieces left for yourself"... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9xPivDPrCc
It's those who consent that are keeping the narrated (narrative) stories (talk) within mind/memory. Those who consent to suggested are claiming ownership.
NaNO-NaNO...it's very tempting to take and very hard to resist that temptation by letting go.