swansont

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.

No, of course not.

! Moderator Note “The internet is a big place and I am going to find other people who misunderstand the third law in the way I misunderstand it” (I’ve noticed engineers tend to be more likely to misunderstand it; saying "reaction force" when they mean "opposing force" and apparently thinking they are the same) We went six pages on this, and I see no reason to indulge you with further discussion

It’s science fiction. You can’t assume they are following actual physical law. Any paradox you come up with is a failing of the plot, not science.

You need only drop to the productivity section of your link “By raising productivity, labor-saving technologies can increase the average industrial rate of profit rather than lowering it, insofar as fewer workers can produce vastly more output at a lower cost, enabling more sales in less time” “assuming value is tied to the amount of labor necessary” What if this assumption is not true?

! Moderator Note Since you are engaging without establishing that the premise is true, this is locked.

! Moderator Note Our rule is about making the discussion accessible to all while guarding against spammers. I’m at a loss as to how “original thinking” enters into it. You don’t get to choose to follow only some of the guidelines.

! Moderator Note From rule 2.7: Attached documents should be for support material only; material for discussion must be posted. You were told this before: post it here, nobody should have to click anything to participate in the discussion.

The claim that a hash rate requires a certain amount of power is contradicted by the later (correct) admission that power use depends on the efficiency of the computer. ”the bitcoin network in 2020 consumes 120 gigawatts (GW) per second.” muddles units. Not a credible article, IMO

! Moderator Note Provide evidence (from mainstream science) that consciousness arise from within the thalamus. As I had asked.

Is there context for this absurd (power is not energy) answer? Can you provide a link?

! Moderator Note I’m not saying anything about the topic, so this is moot. The problem is that you are asserting things as fact, and asking questions based on it, and that’s unacceptable. It is an example of an argument not made in good faith. You had a thread where you asserted unequivocally that the seat of the consciousness is in the striatum. Now we have this. You’re making it up as you go. That’s not going to fly. It’s not science.

! Moderator Note What is the evidence that it does? You simply have to stop posing questions based on unsubstantiated premises. IOW, you can’t ask how aliens built the moon until you establish that aliens actually built the moon.