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**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** >
