swansont

This might help https://phys.org/news/2017-06-universe-flat-topology.html Parallel locally might be a situation like on earth, that longitudinal lines are perpendicular to the equator (as explained in the article) which is a condition for parallel lines in a flat geometry. But the geometry of the earth's surface is curved, so these lines do not remain parallel.

By definition, no. The L in laser stands for light. as Ghideon has noted.

If it’s a conducting sphere, the field will now exist in the region between R1 and R2. (There’s no field inside a conducting sphere) Which has to be the case, since you have to do work to compress the charge, and (some or all of) that energy gets stored in the field. You’d expect dipole radiation, but dipoles don’t radiate along their axis. Symmetry suggests any tangential radiation should cancel. The presence of a radiation pattern would contradict the symmetry.

It’s quite likely that a contaminant in a quantum fluid messes everything up, since the fluid can interact with it, and those would not be the interaction that make a quantum fluid act as a quantum fluid.

They don’t emit electrons. The laser light is emitted by electrons that are being accelerated.

No, that’s not how it works. Quantum fluids have specific properties (typically the spin), which aren’t going to change with an additive.

But it wouldn’t be a perfect sphere, and the asymmetry is likely the issue here. That’s the issue, I think. The motion is radial and so is the field, and you would need a transverse component of the field to emit radiation. Which may become possible if the spherical symmetry is broken. (I have a vague recollection of an example in Griffiths of a problem where the energy of a system and the work required to assemble it are unequal, implying energy had to be lost from the system, i.e. from radiation. Can’t recall if it was this example, though)

I’m assuming this means a uniform spatial distribution, not a constant value. But a uniform distribution is what you expect if it’s a conductor. If you simply reduced r of each charge, the energy goes up, so work must be done. You would have to do this at the limit of zero speed, otherwise the start and stop require a radial acceleration

Why? What, specifically doesn't work? The cost of electricity should have no impact on the computational protocol.

You say electron laser as if you need an electron laser to do this. Or are you thinking that an "electron laser" emits electrons?

Yes, there is, but you didn't specify this in your OP. You simply said cryogenic liquids, and gave examples that are not quantum liquids, so this is irrelevant.

Where did you run across this claim? Arbitrarily changing the radius of a sphere seems unphysical.

It’s a huge leap from a quantum object behaving a certain way to having a liquid behave that way

This suggests you are saying the vacuum is the medium. The medium for EM waves is...EM waves? How is it the EM waves travel at c, independent of motion through this alleged medium?

To be clear, there is such a thing as a free electron laser, but yes, the way fredreload used it was meaningless. (and a free electron laser is one that’s potentially capable of ionizing air along its path) It’s fiction, so whether it’s hard or easy is just a matter of the plot.

Maybe you could learn some physics instead of relying on assumptions.

Your chart says nothing about "excess in voltage not dissipated as power"

! Moderator Note Our rules preclude this kind of participation. You need to post material for discussion here. If you do that, then you may post a link to the paper.

This needs more than an assertion.

All this is doing is restating the idea. That’s not support for it.

But the cause of the profit loss is competition. Yes, it does, if all other things are the same. If you change multiple variables at once you lose the ability to ascribe cause and effect. Maybe that’s not how economists do it, but maybe that’s also how they predicted eleven of the last four recessions. An internally consistent position seems to be all business persons are idiots because they employ labor-saving devices, which reduce profits. One thing to note is that these economic models are based on assumptions, and the empirical data is that labor-saving devices increase profits, which is why people employ them, and the conclusion is that one or more of the assumptions is wrong. Why do farmers not till the earth by hand? The underlying economic idea comes from Marx, so it’s not really based on any modern practice.

1. Things are not true just because you say them. Stating that lasers redirect current is not something you can base any discussion on until AFTER you establish it is true. 2. Regarding voltage being consciousness see 1), but also you aren’t permitted to bring up speculations in other threads. That’s not a statement that has any basis in science. I am loath to touch it, knowing where it must have come from.

How? Has this ever been observed? How is this like lightning?

But if the idea were true, automation would have lowered profits even more ”Mostly due to competition which forced companies to lower prices and increase automation.” directly tells you that the profit drop was due to competition. And if they were forced to automate, that indicates that this reduced costs, and thus the effort increased profits (even if there was an overall drop) If automation didn’t save money, why do it? “ the profits started to grow again as US companies increased manufacturing outsourcing to the countries with less automation and cheaper labor force.” Then you have to compare the cost of labor in the two cases, and there’s your profit increase. You can’t outsource jobs in a system that is automated, because there are no jobs to outsource in that situation. IOW, labor complains about outsourcing, and labor complains about automation because of job loss, but they don’t complain about robots being deactivated because the work went overseas. You’ve pointed to two situations where the cause of the profit drop is identified (competition, rising cost of labor) and somehow assigned it to automation.

Handle/see is true of cash, which hasn’t been the only form of money in quite some time.