MigL

I think almost everyone here has missed my point. My apologies for not explaining myself better. I'm pretty confident everyone involved in this discussion would have voted Democrat in this last election, even us non-Americans, if we could. Why is that ? Is it because one party cares about the economy more than people's lives ? Is it because that party gives tax breaks which predominantly benefit the rich ( and themselves ), and want the middle class to pay for it, and the poor to fend for themselves ? Is it because that party wants to deny ( under the guise of freedom of choice ) ordinary Americans Health coverage, so their donors ( private insurance companies ) can keep making huge profits on the backs of sick and disabled Americans ? Or because other donors to their party want them to spend almost as much on the yearly Defense budget as they did on Covid relief, one time; and nearly defeated after months of talks breaking down. Is it because that party is trying to subvert democracy, and actively considering martial law to overturn the will of the people in this last election ? Or is it because most Democrats actually care about the people they represent and want the best America for them ? IOW, would everybody have voted Democrat in the last election because they are the 'nicer' party ? See, being 'nice' does work !

Are we not trying to show them the 'better way' ? Trying to set an example of how a just society behaves ? If Republicans and Democrats use the same methods of lying/cheating/manipulating voters, does the name still distinguish them ? If Communists and Fascists both use gulags, mass murder and starvation to control people, are they really different ? If the US acted like N Korea or Iran, in their many conflicts, the US would have nuked them a long time ago, and then would have been no different than those terrorist/oppressive regimes. Even Jesus did not slap his tormentors back, but turned the other cheek and said "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do" ( you think maybe I went too far with that last Religious part ?? )

I came across an article which ties in with our discussion about methods to end unequal access to Education, and the role Affirmative Action could play in that process. Given the fact that Black American slaves were once considered less than a person ( 3/5 th ), would it be ethical, or just, to now consider them more than 1 person, in an effort to right past wrongs, as the article proposes with voting rights ? "But there’s another way to undo the damage of the Electoral College and other structurally racist political institutions: We can implement vote reparations by double-counting ballots cast by all Black residents. The poisonous legacy of slavery applies to Black people regardless of when we or our ancestors arrived in this country. Vote reparations should also extend to Native Americans." https://www.thenation.com/article/society/black-votes-reparations-gerrymandering/ What are your thoughts ?

Because if they aren't, then they are as bad as Republicans ? What is that old saying about lying down with pigs ? Or the one about taking the high road ? Be careful what you wish for; if Democrats start acting like Republicans, we are really screwed. Just stickin' up for my buddy, JC .

No, but I do recognize an asshole when I see one. ( my apologies to the rest of the membership tor my infraction and behavior )

Pouty turkeys ??? Come on, I thoroughly enjoyed our discussion. And I'm not the one invoking advanced Physics theories to explain relatively simple geological processes. ( maybe you're trying to aggrandize your own importance by doing so ) What have you got planned next; SuperString Theory to explain the weather ?

Glad you got a laugh out of it .

I don't claim to know much Physics; just have a BSC. But my advice would be to use the KISS principle ( keep it simple, st*pid ). Why resort to esoteric and complex explanations ( like muon catalyzed fusion and quantum processes ) for something that can be explained with 'classical' geophysics? And don't claim that conventional explanations have all failed, as you didn't provide a single example of failed conventional explanations. Not only that, but your proposal doesn't offer any explanations either; it is simply a 'guess', and you expect others to work out the details to make it 'fly'.

I can see other problems also. The gas giants, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, are sizeable enough that inertial effects on acceleration ( of the Sun ), would cause disruptions to their orbits; which would, in turn, affect even the smaller 'rocky' planets. You might move the Sun, but it may arrive at its destination without planets.

I understand ( and appreciate ) your efforts.

Happy Birthday !

WTF ??? ( just playing with your name ) Had I been talking to you, I would have been more careful with my wording and definitions. I don't think CuriosOne got anything from your 'refinement'.

The Sun is mostly Hydrogen/Helium in 4/1 ratio. Even in 5 billion years, it will be mostly Hydrogen. The problem is that fusion takes place in the core, so while there will be plenty of Hydrogen, the heavier fusion products accumulate in the core. These heavier products ( deuterium, helium, lithium, beryllium, carbon, etc. all the way up to iron ) require higher and higher temperatures, or kinetic energies, to overcome the separation and allow fusing. The temps cause the expansion. The only way to keep the temps from increasing is to remove the heavier elements accumulating in the core, so that lighter, cooler fusing Hydrogen, outside the core, could fall in to take their place. If you can think of a way to do that, you can extend the life of the sun until it is too light, and can't supply the pressure required to produce Hydrogen burning temperatures.

If that is from the introduction to differential calculus I gave you two weeks ago … 1 - I would have thought you'd be further along by now. 2 - At every point on the curve of the function, you can draw a tangent line, such that 1 point ( only ) is common to both. The slope of that tangent line, at that point, is equivalent to the derivative of that function ( with respect to its variable ), at that point. This allows you to have the slope/derivative at a single point, as opposed to F(x1)-F(x2)/x1-x2, which gives you an 'average' over the multiple points included in between the two values of x. 3 - Points on the line/curve of a function can represent a lot of things, or, none at all. 4 - I'm glad you're asking questions, and not making assertions.

On the contrary. Nature ,or the laws of Physics, tend towards lowest energy use.

There are many small form factor, computer switching ( digital ) power supplies available on eBay, powered from your mains, which will supply both the 5V, as well as 12V, in several Amps. Most are available for about $25. Why complicate things ?

Without any supporting evidence. There is just as much supporting evidence for microscopic Black Holes, orbiting within the diameter of the Earth. IOW, zero.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. The OP still hasn't posted any 'numbers' to go along with his conjecture that shows muonic fusion to be possible within the parameters of the Earth's core. IIRC, muon catalyzed fusion does allow the nucleus to be about 200 times smaller due to the reduced mass difference with the electron. However, this does NOT mean a reduction in the diameter of a proton itself; please cite evidence for this effect, if available. And, as to the source of the muons. Every time this scheme has been investigated, the required energy to produce the muons has been more than that produced by the catalyzed fusion reaction. Muon catalyzed fusion may have a 'right to life', but it will only be considered if other, mainstream approaches fail.

Don't know enough about geology, but I would have thought the stresses, strains, pressures, temperatures and gravity of classical Physics is enough to explain geological effects without resorting to quantum processes. Maybe when you present a discussable scenario, and HOW classical Physics fails, then we can discuss the need to investigate quantum processes. ( and I mean a discussable post, not a PDF, or Word document, link ) Until then, you may be proposing solutions to non-existent problems.

OK. For hydrogen nuclei ( plasma ) to have enough energy, to be able to get close enough to a separation of 10-12 mm, the nuclei have to be at a temperature of 100 MILLION deg K; about 6 times the core temperature of the Sun. Obviously, the p-p fusion cycle works ( and for more massive stars, the CNO, Bethe- Weiszaker fusion cycle ), but at temperatures close to 15 MILLION deg K for our Sun, although it could start at only 5 MILLION deg K in much smaller stars. When you consider that the Earth's core is at about 6 thousand deg K, you are still three orders of magnitude out of the ball-park. But maybe the OP is talking about some new kind of cold fusion ?

I'm trying to figure out what, exactly, fuses. Magma is composed mostly of silicates ( oxygen, sodium, magnesium, silicon, calcium, potassium and iron ). Of these, assuming you could have a plasma, iron is a dead end for fusion ( no matter how small the atoms get ? ). The lightest element which could fuse, would be oxygen, but, as that requires 1.5 BILLION deg K, I really don't see how it is even being considered in this discussion.

We didn't ask for excuses; we asked for explanations. Yes, that's the kind of site we are.

You present two postulates ... Which don't jive with accepted Physics, and with no backing evidence, and no explanation of how these postulates are manifested. Then immediately launch into an explanation of quantum spin ???? That's not how we do things. Back up your assertions.

As Swansont already pointed out, That is the incomplete Newtonian model. In the much more ( but still not fully ) complete GR model, it is the ground hitting you, as you innocently travel along a geodesic ( free fall ).

Oh, and I forgot that cranky, Scottish geology expert Ophiolite. Always wanted to have a Scotch with him, and ask him what three battles he was in sight of.