swansont

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?

! Moderator Note Your first comment was religious, which is decidedly off-topic. Your second comment was indeed about moving matter (including water), but went into zero detail about how it addressed the objection, which has been a disappointing pattern with your posts. And then you claimed you were answering a different question. You call it picking a fight. I call it trying to obtain a minimum level of science in a science discussion. I don’t know if I can do the latter - it’s up to you - but if you make this a fight I know who will win.

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.

! Moderator Note Which has nothing to do with Pascal’s principle, and isn’t what you had quoted from Strange. Stop trolling.

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?

! Moderator Note You don’t get to make this determination. I gave you a straightforward criterion to follow.

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

! Moderator Note You need to post the details you wish to discuss. You need to stop posting speculations in main part of the forum. If you can’t find it in a textbook - the whole model, not just selected parts - it belongs here.

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.

! Moderator Note Partway there. (this is the simple part; anyone adept at first-year physics know’s Pascal’s principle) The hard part is explaining how that would cause a flood. (hint: where does the water come from to displace the underground water?)

! Moderator Note Security is not the only reason for the rule. Please comply with it. Discussion needs to take place here. ! Moderator Note As supplementary information.

sweetque banned as a sock of molbol2000

! Moderator Note This is the earth science section, so this is OT. ! Moderator Note Unless and until you provide salient details of the engineering/physics, this is speculation, and not permitted here.

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

You explained what it was. Is it your position that you did a poor job of explaining? My own view was that once some actual science was posted, the context of “system of theory” would become clearer. There’s really no need to announce this. Good luck. Yes, I believe that was the point of the replies. You should understand that people will only invest so much time in reading something that is quite likely flawed. When you bury the lede, you increase the odds of people tuning out.

! 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...?