swansont

As an anecdote to the contrary, I haven't had a cold since this all started, which is unusual. Not sure if it's the hand-washing, the mask-wearing, the social-distancing, or the shutdown meaning kids weren't mixing and sharing their germs with their parents, who might then share them with me. Probably a combination of all three. Lowering resistance might not be an issue if you avoid being exposed to a virus in the first place.

How is it that you know these aren't being considered (and possibly already ejected - what other effects might they cause)? And which is the worse result? Dying or having dry skin? What you think is irrelevant. Do you have evidence to back this up? The conclusion one might draw is not that masks are bad, it's that it's a good idea to wash your masks if they are to be re-usable, and discard ones that aren't.

For starters, a mole of an ideal gas at STP takes up 22.4L, so any reaction that takes liquids and/or solids and gives you a gas will start you off. One that created more gas than what the reactants comprise (e.g. large molecules that give off multiple molecules of H2, H2, CO2, N2 etc. is going have a large pressure if constrained to some volume) It would also depend on excess energy released, because that would increase the temperature, which would give a greater pressure.

They can apply but be irrelevant. Consider the act of walking through a doorway. Will anyone notice how much you diffract? Your deBroglie wavelength is of order 10^-36m, which is similar to the deflection you would have with the first diffraction order through a 1m doorway, 1m after you walked through. Similarly, you are in a (gravitationally) bound state — do you notice the quantized energy levels? In the basic 1D particle-in-a-box problem, the energy levels are proportional to h^2 and scale with the inverse of mass. So perhaps the steps are of order 10^-70J. Are you going to notice the difference between settling in on different energy levels as you take a step up the stairs?

You are piling up the violations. A neutrino is a lepton with spin 1/2. It can’t just pop into existence. Photon absorption reactions are inconsistent with a neutrino being involved. Photons, OTOH, are bosons, and their number is not conserved. Relativity is consistent with experiment. E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4 If a photon has mass, p≠E/c You can’t change one part of physics without the effects rippling through other aspects of it. If you overhaul it, you have to overhaul all if it. And you need evidence to support your assertions. Wrong for you? You don’t have your own personal universe.

Photons having mass falsifies your conjecture. We know, for example, the the photon momentum is E/c, which is inconsistent with them having mass. Out of curiosity, what happens when a photon is destroyed? What happens to these rings of charge? Well, that would be a problem, if you don’t understand magnets exert/experience torque It’s scary enough that you’re an engineer who doesn’t understand physics

1. The wavelength is energy dependent, so thus separation us not fixed 2. This isn’t a calculation (what’s the equation for this purported equilibrium point?) 3. You are ignoring torque This is a cop-out. You run away from the responsibility of learning and working through basic science, which is known to work, and expect others to do this. Why would someone develop a model that’s so obviously at odds with how physics is known to work (basically, you’ve pre-falsified your ideas). This isn’t some cutting-edge case that demands new physics. This is physics that has a century or more of confirmation. Showing up and asserting you’re right but expecting others to do the work is not going to fly.

You need to show this, rather than just assert it

They would tend to push themselves apart because each ring is a line charge. Each element dq would repel all other elements in the ring. And then the rings attract each other, but only repel if aligned a certain way, and the separation varies with energy, so I don't see how a stable configuration would ever be possible (even if it was stable at some value of separation, which it isn't)

Any evidence that particles like this exist? That runs up against a lot of other physics that says they are massless, which means they don't move at c It's not enough to merely state this. You need to show such a configuration is in a stable equilibrium. Account for the forces and torques. If the separation is half the DeBroglie wavelength then the interaction between the rings varies with photon energy You're saying they have a physical size (rings separated by half the DeBroglie wavelength), so they are not just mathematical structures. Why would they not be separable? What physical laws would that violate?

It’s not a classical particle, so why must it conform to classical descriptions and behaviors? Physics makes no claim to tell you truth, or reality. It describes how nature behaves, not what it is. To quote Dr. Jones, “If it's truth you're interested in, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall.”

What is charges that gives rise to this current, and how does this happen considering the photon is massless? What keeps these charges separated? Why are they not separated by external fields? How does this behavior depend on photon energy?

True but I didn’t say we don’t notice results of relativistic effects. I said we don’t see the corrections - the differences between Newton and Einstein as relative speed changes (the context of the discussion). Neither of these are manifestations of time vs distance. They are energy corrections, and it’s not something that changes with relative motion.

It’s the usual situation one is in. And the corrections of relativity are usually not noticeable under virtually all circumstances the average person encounters. How are the “roles” reversed? Do you suddenly see time? Does stereoscopic vision assist with time perception? Claimed, but it never stands up to scrutiny. Not a good notion on which to base anything

Does this matter? Time and distance in a single frame - no relative motion - are experienced differently. Motion doesn’t enter into it.

What, specifically, needs to be “solved”?

That's a different question. We know things will looks different, but I don't think that really changes the fact that we don't experience time and distance the same way.

What needs to be "solved"?

That would be true of any model that was incorrect. It works for one phenomenon, but fails elsewhere. We see this today with e.g. MOND to explain what GR explains with dark matter. It works at one range of parameter, but not others. I think there is little doubt that we would. It would be a matter of when. Was GEM advanced as a solution to this issue?

Those aren't really visualizing distance, they are visualizing objects moving at high speed. You use your eyes to visualize distance. You are literally visualizing it. I don't know about you, but I don't experience time the same way. I can see a meter stick, and I can picture something a meter away, or even a point where nothing that exists that is a meter away (well, these days it's more like two meters). Not the same with time.

It also needs some analysis to say "it's baryon number non-conservation" Where is this analysis? It's a weak argument to say it's not your idea. You started the thread, you associated the idea with certain phenomena. You have to claim ownership of that, and with it comes certain obligations.

You can visualize distance. I think that's the big hangup. Time is experienced in a different way.

That also requires that to be a common event Baryon decay happens all the time. You are, I assume, referring to free proton decay, in the context of baryon number non-conservation (per the title) These are not interchangeable descriptions. If it happens in the core of a neutron star but not outside of it, that implies it is not a decay process that is occurring. You seem to be once again referring to baryon number non-conservation, rather than any particular decay. And, as above, this would require the process to be fairly common. I don't know, but I would imagine that the circumstances that make fusion more likely would not be part of a design of a proton decay experiment.

I'm not sure what the premise is of the OP: what happens if Einstein doesn't come up with GR (he tragically dies in 1906, or something), or if GR doesn't exist at all. If the former, then the matter of someone else coming up with it at a later date has to be a possibility. If the latter - basically you are discussing alternatives to GR that are ultimately incorrect. According to the link, GEM was introduced a few decades before GR was finalized. What were the reasons it was not pursued further? I see nothing in the link about it explaining the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. This was a problem known in 1915, and solved by GR. Would an alternative theory have taken hold in a GR vacuum, if it could not explain this effect? Anything that could not would start out with the handicap of knowing it was not complete. In addition, someone would have likely investigated light bending around the sun during an eclipse at some point, and showing that Newton was wrong. And model that could not explain this would likewise be considered incomplete, or wrong.

Why would we see excessive energy? If the process were massively exothermic, as you are implying with "1,000 times brighter than researchers previously thought was possible for neutron stars" then perhaps it would be more common. But I can see no reason to think that violation of baryon number requires the process to be exothermic. BTW, a fusion reaction can happen at room temperature. Reaction ≠ chain reaction (i.e. sustained fusion doesn't happen at room temperature) But proton decay must be something that happens spontaneously, if it's a decay. If it requires a system to be at some temperature, then it's an induced reaction, not a decay. So if we observe for some period of time and don't see evidence of a decay, we can place a lower limit on the lifetime of the process.