swansont

How would you move a star several LY to get to another star?

! Moderator Note This last bit is question raised, but the bulk of this post has nothing to do with it. Staying on-topic and focused is another issue that should improve everybody’s experience ! Moderator Note This is not the topic of discussion. Whatever you mean by “sharing a constant” this belongs in a different thread. Whatever your lack of understanding is, it’s more fundamental than the topic of the OP.

! Moderator Note “mathematics is a discipline” One could also say mathematics is a language, with its own version of syntax, vocabulary and rules for spelling, etc. In order to have useful discussion you can’t make up your own words and definitions. You have to learn and use the ones everybody else is. You can’t jump into a conversation without knowing these basics. This concept also applies to math. Perhaps it would be better to discuss more fundamental concepts first. Plenty of people have stepped up to try and help but it’s frustrating when there is such a barrier to communication

Bartholomew Jones has been suspended for preaching, repeatedly going off-topic, and making bad-faith arguments.

Even if this were the solution, the answer would be “no” the sun’s mass is 2 x 10^30 kg, and largely hydrogen. The earth’s mass is 6 x 10^24 kg, and only a tiny fraction of that mass is hydrogen. So where would you get enough hydrogen to make any noticeable difference?

Then break it down into individual steps, because you are introducing multiple hypotheses, each of which needs to be examined. There’s way too much to discuss in a single thread. Example 1: muonic hydrogen fusion is difficult to show even under laboratory conditions, where you are forming muonium with a minimum number of parasitic reactions and can exert maximum control over the conditions. You need to show this can happen out in nature, either by a detailed assessment of the factors that affect it, or by showing it actually happens (as with Oklo for fission) More detail everywhere. Saying some physical process releases power does not in any way guarantee enough energy will be available for some specific nuclear reaction. A Terawatt sounds big, but Avogadro’s number is also big. Very big.

You can provide the evidence requested.

You’re speaking of this as if it’s been observed. Provide experimental evidence of it.

That’s not what I asked. I asked about muon catalysis. The main problem I see is you are assuming that you can daisy-chain multiple phenomena together because the descriptions use similar wording. Such as one instance of forming a plasma, and some other process requiring a plasma. But the circumstances are not identical, so they can’t be blindly equated. Fusing muonium in a plasma doesn’t mean the same will happen with aluminum dioxide. Each step you link in your proposal is a speculation unto itself.

OK, in rocks. Same question. Under what conditions? Are these conditions even remotely similar to what you propose? Energy is conserved, and spontaneous reactions release energy.

Muon catalysis occurring in magma has experimental confirmation?

I already posted a link to more recent report regarding this issue, and nothing about the research suggests the proton changes size.

Yes This is what needs to be shown. You have yet to provide a citation for this assertion And you need to do more than assert this. ! Moderator Note I didn’t read it at all. I reiterate: You need to post whatever you wish to discuss. Dubious assertion.

! Moderator Note The OP is proposing muonium fusion; — — — in such a conjecture the OP should be able to discuss the points raised in the several responses above (temperature required, available density of protons, rates of formation, limitations of the muon lifetime, etc., and not just a handwave of lots energy being released in “hydraulic shock” These issues, and more, are why this is in speculations.

sweetque banned as a sock of molbol2000

Your proposal is more than these bits, and if there is experimental evidence that the proton radius changes, let’s have it. (Note that the differences in measured values is not evidence that the value changes. More recent results seem to have resolved this issue.) https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.1.20191106a/full/ You might want to rethink this approach.

Find me this model in a textbook, showing that it’s mainstream science, and I will.

! Moderator Note You need to post an abstract and whatever you wish to discuss.

molbol2000 has been banned for violations of our rules against slurs, making bad-faith arguments and soapboxing

! Moderator Note Recent posts. Sprinter vs marathon runner and max heart rate, specifically, but playing through an injury isn’t strongly connected, either. Please stay on topic.

! Moderator Note The connection of recent posts to chronic pain is...?

In a Newtonian world, it’s a force. But, as with basically all physics, when you dive deeper you find that the simple models aren’t quite true.

SteveKlinko banned for ignoring repeated warnings about not opening new threads based on his pet theory.

We can measure the strength of these interactions, and people have done so. As Eise points out, you discuss movement, not forces, and nothing about quantifying the strength, which is necessary to answer your question.

! Moderator Note We prefer it if you post the ideas (it’s more accessible and easier to quote portions to give feedback), and at least an abstract (a summary that highlights the idea and important results).