Terry, I understand that this is the current theory. But, like all of science theory, it is subject to being in error.
I suspect that it would be very difficult to actually include all of the important factors involved in the super nova process and then produce an accurate model. Ask yourself how accurate the prediction might be? It would only take a minor change in the radius of the sun to make it have a mass 2 times (current super nova limit?) what we think it has. Also, stars of this mass range are notoriously long lived. How many accurately know examples do we have as reference since nearby super novas are extremely rare, thank God. I am sorry to take the critical questioning side of the argument, but I think it must be considered before any firm conclusions can be drawn. In this case we are most likely far removed in time from worry about the sun's fate, but it did come up in these discussions. Why do I tend to be suspect of science theories? Well, let me count some of the ways! First, it is well known by most of the physicists that LENR is not possible. Second, heavier than air flight was not possible until it was demonstrated many times. Third, the laser was not discovered until the 60's. Forth, the atomic weapon was seriously in doubt until proven. The list goes on and on. In general it seems that our science theories are way behind the facts that are discovered by pure chance many if not most times. Why have much trust in a system that has consistently demonstrated poor predictive power? Dave -----Original Message----- From: Terry Blanton <hohlr...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Mon, Dec 17, 2012 4:42 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data "Worrying" 2000 climatologists about Global Warming .... Sol has insufficient mass to go supernova.
