You can see here that you can have solid plasma: http://www.overclockersclub.com/news/30536/
Giovanni On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <gsantost...@gmail.com>wrote: > Chem, > Maybe by use of "plasma" is not perfectly precise but for all purposes > iron at that temperature is a plasma because it is extremely ionized. Yes, > the usual idea of a plasma is that is a sort of gas but the main property > really is that electrons are stripped away from the nucleus this is the > case with the core of the earth. It is basically a plasma from this point > of view. > Giovanni > > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:45 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint <zeropo...@charter.net>wrote: > >> Good discussion guys! **** >> >> Keeping the focus on the technical data, and so far you’ve been able to >> avoid getting personal… excellent!**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Giovanni, thanks for including the web-links to references… much >> appreciated.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> My only issue so far is with Giovanni’s statement:**** >> >> ** ** >> >> > The core <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core> of the Sun is >> considered to extend from the center to **** >> >> > about 20–25% of the solar >> > radius.[46]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-Garcia2007-47> It >> > has a density of up to >> **** >> >> > 150 g/cm3[47] >> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-Basu-48>[48]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-NASA1-49>(about >> > 150 times the density of water) and a >> **** >> >> > temperature of close to 15.7 million >> > kelvin<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin>(K) >> [48] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-NASA1-49>.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> There is no way we could DIRECTLY measure either the radius of the Sun’s >> core or its density. The ‘accepted’ figures come from theoretical models; >> and applying those models to related variable. As far as the radius is >> concerned, your use of the phrasing, “… is considered to extend…” indicates >> your conscious understanding that the ESTIMATES of the Sun’s core radius is >> just that… and **estimate, not backed up by direct measurement**. >> However, when you state, “It has a density of upto…” seems to be a bit too >> ‘definite’ for my taste… **** >> >> ** ** >> >> This is a major problem I find in scientific papers. **Definitive** >> wording has crept into papers where it doesn’t belong; it is not warranted >> by the DIRECT experimental measurements. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> -Mark Iverson **** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* Giovanni Santostasi [mailto:gsantost...@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Monday, January 21, 2013 12:54 PM >> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >> >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational**** >> >> ** ** >> >> The core <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_core> of the Sun is >> considered to extend from the center to about 20–25% of the solar radius. >> [46] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-Garcia2007-47> It has a >> density of up to 150 >> g/cm3[47]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-Basu-48> >> [48] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-NASA1-49> (about 150 >> times the density of water) and a temperature of close to 15.7 million >> kelvin <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin> >> (K)[48]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#cite_note-NASA1-49> >> .**** >> >> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:47 PM, ChemE Stewart <cheme...@gmail.com> >> wrote:**** >> >> I was thinking a plasma was less dense. Maybe you meant a Bose Einstein >> condensate or something similar?**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *Plasma* is similar to a gas, in which a certain proportion of its >> particles are ionized. Gases contain molecules bonded with molecular >> bonds.In stars or in case of high temperatures, the molecular bonds of >> gases are dissociated & then due to high temperature it suffers further >> heating <http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas> & >> finally forms so called plasma. They have density about [1 part./meter cube >> -1032 part./meter >> cube<http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_plasma_more_dense_than_gas> >> ].**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Giovanni Santostasi < >> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote:**** >> >> It is denser because the iron is in a plasma form under a lot of >> pressure, so it can be compacted. >> Giovanni**** >> >> >> >> **** >> >> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:26 PM, ChemE Stewart <cheme...@gmail.com> >> wrote:**** >> >> From You**** >> >> ** ** >> >> "Gravity was dominant force. People do simulations of this stuff and they >> work"**** >> >> ** ** >> >> From Me:**** >> >> ** ** >> >> 1) The inner core of Earth is denser than iron and/or nickel**** >> >> 2) A true simulation of the Earth's core and magnetic field has not been >> established to date**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Both of these contradict your statement above.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Stewart**** >> >> darkmattersalot.com**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Giovanni Santostasi < >> gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote:**** >> >> What is in this link that contradicts what I have said about iron sinking >> at the center of the earth? >> Giovanni >> >> **** >> >> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Terry Blanton <hohlr...@gmail.com> >> wrote:**** >> >> I have a sinking feeling that the sinking theory is flawed.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf78.html**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> > >
