Mark, Everything we do in science is based on models. In fact, most of our rational understanding of the world is a model. When you say tomorrow the sun will come up from the horizon again, you are basing this statement on a model, maybe based on several previous observations but still you are putting all these inputs you collected in a model that says tomorrow the sun will rise again. The models of astrophysics are actually among the most complete and well studied in all science. Our understanding of stellar structure is extremely good. They are not just theoretical, they make very precise predictions that can be testable and they have been tested many times in many different space and temporal scales. There was a period of several decades where the models could not predict the right amount of neutrino flux on Earth from the sun and people doubted the astrophysical models. Some physicists suggested instead that maybe our neutrino physics was incomplete. It turned out that the astrophysics was right and we had to change our neutrinos models. Also we start to have better understanding of the solar interior not just through models but direct observation through helioseismology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helioseismology 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**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** >
