This is a good paper that describe a possible model for the outer core, not quite a plasma but a metallic liquid with unusual properties:
http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucfbdxa/pubblicazioni/nat.pdf Giovanni On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <[email protected]>wrote: > Can you send me a paper with your theory explained in details, with > calculations and simulations? > A story telling in a blog using some nonsensical words would not make it. > Thanks, > > Giovanni > > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:05 PM, ChemE Stewart <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Cool, >> >> My theory explains Earth's magnetic fields, magnetotail, coronal >> discharge jets and transmuted elements and the accretion of matter we live >> in. >> >> Can you explain all that? >> >> >> On Monday, January 21, 2013, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: >> >>> 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 < >>> [email protected]> 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 >>> <[email protected]>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 **** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> ** >>> >>> >
