Nvredward

Just train them. Nothing else to say. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTL7cqhm-yk https://eu-images.contentstack.com/v3/assets/bltdd43779342bd9107/blt2b6306cfbc1202fb/63920839df58990ccb0b5104/0427M1-2880a_2_0.jpg https://i.ytimg.com/vi/w1OBCLH79Sc/maxresdefault.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMDUOkCqCmA https://acoem.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/XYZ-4.png Would movement along the X axis be shades of black and white? Would movement along the Y axis be shades of color? Would movement along the Z axis be blurriness or sharpness? Would the size of the central dot be more or less light? https://www.meddean.luc.edu/lumen/MedEd/medicine/pulmonar/phydx/s10b.jpg I don't know.

You might be right. Not water.

https://cdn.ecommercedns.uk/files/4/203904/9/49919809/human-eye-anatomy-diagram.jpg https://assets.ltkcontent.com/images/91189/concave-convex-example_7abbbb2796.jpg https://media.istockphoto.com/id/1249923502/photo/businessman-looking-sunrise-standing-by-window.jpg?s=612x612&w=0&k=20&c=kzg8RNJzm3tJuRawv6DtJ4weveU8SsP8u-1__ta8DH8= 1) If a window is redesigned to be concave, then that window would be an analogy to Lasik surgery, where the window is the outer surface of the eye. ( 2) Putting another sheet of concave glass on the outside of the window would be an analogy to having prescription glasses, where the extra sheet of glass is the lens of the glasses. (( 3) The person standing in front of the window would be the dot (focal point) of the light coming into the eye. The focal point in inside of the eye. ((o 4) Behind the person would be something maybe convex, like a mirror. ((o) All in a straight line. THE FOCAL POINT MUST BE INCASED INSIDE OF A CONCAVE AND A CONVEX AREA. (o). 1) The outer surface of the eye reduces "fractals" (diamonds) and sharpens images from blurry to clear. ( 2) The prescription glasses do the same thing. (( 3) The location of the dot (focal point) determines your level of colorblindness. ((o If the dot is not in the center, you will be colorblind. The more off center, the more colorblind you are. ((o 4) The mirror behind the person is designed to increase or decrease light. This "mirror" may be simple convex or it may have to be complicated in its design. ((o) All in a straight line. All in a straight line, because our peripheral vision is always blurry. I'm not interested in peripheral vision. 4) My interest is in number 4. An implant that is convex like a mirror might help increase light in blind people. Or, instead of an implant, some kind of "convex micro stitching" may be accomplished. ) The goal would be to take almost non-existent light and increase it in the eye. Light so minute that it is a thousand decimal points before 0.00000-. The light comes from outside the window, from the outside world outside of our eye. You just increase it as it enters the eye and goes back into the outside world, turning night into day or a spark into a streetlamp in terms of brightness. That's my take on it (including colorblindness).

I was looking at this map. I think seawater could be the cause, in my opinion. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/figures/mm6810a7-F.gif https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_fit-1500w,f_auto,q_auto:best/newscms/2016_50/1830991/161213-jama-cardivascular-death-map.jpg

In the movie Armageddon they drill into the asteroid/comet and in the movie Deep Impact they fly into a fissure. Doing those things could create multiple smaller pieces, which could be dangerous within themselves. Something to be cautious about.

Might be able to do microscopic incisions that are designed to heal at 1-5% per each surgery. When they heal, the healing "bleeds through" to the previous severe sever. So, a spinal cord sever could take 20 or more surgeries to heal completely. If you wait too long after the accident, the lack of mobility and lack of the use of your spinal cord would slow down and then eventually halt the healing process. I'm not sure if a "bleeding through" strategy has ever been investigated. This "bleed through" strategy may work for other problems, such as brain damage. Many possibilities.

If your spinal cord is severed, then supposedly it carries no more signal to your limbs and is permanent, even after the spinal cord is surgically reconnected. I suspect that, after being surgically reconnected, that there is still a signal, however minute. It just doesn't show up on tests. To increase the signal, you add more spinal cord, thereby increasing the length and/or width. The more length and width theoretically equals more signal. Appearance is probably not as important in the patient's mind, as much as their quality of life, life span, and pain management. To test this hypothesis, the extra spinal cord would have to be taken from people who have donated their bodies to science, and implanted into the patient with the spinal cord injury. https://cdn.britannica.com/97/175597-050-BF89D789/Charles-Laughton-The-Hunchback-of-Notre-Dame.jpg.

Filter the blood through a machine using centrifugal force and/or other forces and/or viscosity and/or chemical solutions. Eradicate the disease with chemical solutions and/or burn it with a laser and/or burn it through some other means and/or scoop it out. https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/61c4da8eb1b30a201b9669f2/e133ea28-0591-43b0-9177-d80dfc518cab/Tree-Rings.jpg. The machine's variables can be "tailored" for the disease that is being treated. Such as cancer, plagues, and STD's.

If you place a laser pointer on its side on a table and point it at the wall across the room, there will be a straight beam of light, of course. Then, if you twist the laser pointer on the table only 2-5 millimeters, the location where the laser was hitting the wall will move much greater than 2-5 millimeters; it will move maybe an inch or more. So, a very small movement of only a few millimeters on the table produces a much larger effect/offset on the wall across the room-maybe an inch or more. If you increased the distance from instead of across the room to a mile, then twisting the laser pointer the same 2-5 millimeters on the table would offset the laser at the other end many many feet. So you've increased the offset from a inch to many many feet by increasing the length of the laser beam to a mile. So, as you increase the length of the laser beam, the offset at the other end becomes larger and larger by only twisting the laser pointer 2-5 millimeters. This concept means that an asteroid/comet that is on a collision course with Earth would have to be moved less and less the farther you went out to meet it. At 500,000 miles out from Earth, you'd have to move the asteroid/comet maybe miles. At 4 million miles out from Earth, you'd only have to move the asteroid/comet a few millimeters. This is better because it is possible; to move the asteroid a few millimeters can be accomplished with 1-4 nuclear weapons, depending on the asteroid's/comet's size. Moving the asteroid/comet a mile cannot be accomplished. It is too big to be moved that far. The farther out you go from Earth, the less the asteroid/comet has to be moved, so the easier it becomes to move. Once the asteroid/comet is on top of you (close to Earth) it's too late. So, the solution is that you have to "chase it down". When you see an incoming asteroid/comet you have to intercept it as far out into space away from Earth as possible, whereby you have a good chance of moving it. The only downside to this plan is that your computer trajectory calculations would have to be unimaginably precise. You could accidentally cause an asteroid/comet (that was originally supposed to miss us) to slam into us by changing its trajectory. The lengths that I used in this post are just examples. You'd have to take actual readings to get correct numbers.