swansont

When do they diverge? When there’s relative motion, and/or a difference in location in a gravitational potential. They can be compared by sending signals between the clocks. Space expansion doesn’t happen where you are. It happens between you and some distant point. The oscillator in space will run faster owing to being higher in (or out of) the gravity well, and slower owing to motion. The net effect depends on the details. GPS, for example runs fast because the gravitational effect is bigger. On the ISS they run slower because the kinematic effect is bigger. Synchronization means frequency and phase are the same. Frequency only is syntonization. (i.e. you would not say a clock reading 1200 is synchronized with a clock that read 1043)

The Amazon didn’t emit the CO2. Human action did. “Researchers compared the volume of CO2 sunk into the forest to the volumes released by fires or cutting down trees.”

And yet we’re 12 pages in and it hasn’t been shut down, so yeah, great example of mods wanting to “close the thread as soon as possible” I will note that you’ve expended time and effort to complain, but haven’t addressed any of the points I raised. One might think you’re trying to distract from the shortcomings of your position.

It happens if you stay on the earth, or near the earth. It’s about motion and where you are in a gravity well, not about being in space, or the details of the environment. Special relativity is a direct consequence of the invariance of the speed of light. One might expect the speed to depend on the motion of the source or the target, but for light it’s not. That can’t happen if length and time are absolute.

! Moderator Note The electric and magnetic fields are transverse to the direction of the light’s path. I’m not inclined for you to make another half-assed guess. This doesn’t meet the standard for rigor of speculations. We’re done here

You went from “would they flow?” to “they will flow” Pick one. If it’s the latter, you need to explain why.

Typically, yes, the deBroglie wavelength exceeds the separation.

! Moderator Note No. You aren't complying with the rules about posting the material here (2.7) and our speculations rules say "Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof" You haven't done this, and you are basing your speculation upon other speculation that also has no evidence. If you want to base an idea on antigravity that violates conservation of momentum, provide a model for how this antigravity works. If you can't do that, there is no point in building a model on top of it.

! Moderator Note Speculations ≠ WAG Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. You need a model or make testable predictions.

If you anthropomorphize nature and think there is a purpose then you will make understanding of evolution all the more difficult.

I don't think I did miss the point. This is an inherent problem of trying to address problems/questions with colloquial expressions and analogies, with the inevitable failure of rigor at some point along the way. It's a cousin to the expression "All models are wrong. Some are useful." where one party is trying to convey the useful part and another party is focused on the "wrong" part. So when someone offers up an example of parallel lines (or, more specifically, what one might assume are parallel lines, because they meet a criterion for parallel lines) and then you find out that they are not, the conclusion is you are not in a flat geometry. Someone who is not clear on the concept might find that example helpful. Someone who does understand the concept pointing out that the lines are not actually parallel is probably not nearly as helpful. This is reminiscent of when folks show up to ask a question about basic physics, and people jump in with some advanced physics that has no direct bearing on the discussion (e.g. pointing out how GR treats a problem when Newtonian gravity is sufficient to answer the question). Being right and being helpful are not necessarily the same thing.

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?