Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 1,988 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 968,547
Pageviews Today: 1,728,603Threads Today: 736Posts Today: 13,130
07:34 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

The Sunīs Death: Sooner Rather than Later?

 
Die Bunker
Offer Upgrade

User ID: 18685
United States
11/27/2005 11:58 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
The Sunīs Death: Sooner Rather than Later?
The Sunīs Death: Sooner Rather than Later?

Adam Frank for McGraw-Hill

There is an old joke where a guy walks into an astronomy lecture and listens to a professor talking about the fate of the Sun. "In a billion years" the professor says "our star, the Sun, will run out of fuel and die". The guy raises his hand and says, "How long did you say we had?" The professor repeats his billion-year prediction. "Whew," says the guy, "I was getting worried. I thought you said a million years!"

As the joke implies, the time-scales involved in the death of the Sun are so long that there really is no point in losing sleep over it. Whatīs the difference to us paltry humans between a dead Sun in a million years or a billion years? If all you are concerned with is the immediate future (say ten thousand years) then the fate of the Sun is not a big problem, compared with paying off your student loans. From the perspective of homo-sapiens as a species, however, itīs a very different story. Remember that the dinosaurs lasted for more than a hundred million years. If we are hoping to be more than an evolutionary flash in the pan then the Sunīs fate becomes a palpable issue and, as we learn more about the relationship between stars and their planetary offspring, it appears that we have less time not more.

The Sun is made up of more than a billion billion billion tons of matter. All that stuff produces a lot of gravitational force that squeezes the star ever inward. In order to fight that inward crush stars utilize fusion power to hold themselves up. At the Sunīs center, where the crush is most extreme, Hydrogen nuclei are repeatedly squeezed together (fused) to form Helium. A little energy is given up in these fusion reactions (via good old E=mc2). The newly liberated energy flows outward toward the Sunīs surface heating the outer layers in the process and puffing the star up to counteract the inward force of gravity. As long as the Hydrogen fusion reactions are running along the Sun is safe from gravity and can serve as a source of heat and light for our happy blue planet.

The Hydrogen fuel canīt last forever of course. About five billion years from now, the Hydrogen at the center of the Sun will all be converted to Helium. That is when the Sun begins to die and, traditionally, is when most astronomers think the trouble would begin for the Earth. Without its Hydrogen the Sun has to find a new way to liberate energy and fight gravity. The Helium deposits in its core can be fused into Carbon and Oxygen but only if the conditions in the core become much more extreme. To accomplish this, the Sun changes radically. The core contracts and, more importantly, the outer layers swell. In its old age the Sun will bloat to swallow all the inner planets including possibly the Earth. Even if the Earth is not engulfed, the bloated Sun will expand enough to scorch whatever life might remain on our ill-fated planetīs surface. There is little escape from our date with doom five billion years from now.

That is the good news. The bad news is disaster could be waiting for us quite a bit sooner than five billion years. The Sun is not constant now and it never has been. Even though our star seems to be in its comfortable middle age it is, in fact, slowly heating up. Every ton of Hydrogen gas that gets converted into Helium forces the Sun to contract just a little bit and that raises its temperature just a bit. In the next 1.1 billion years the amount of energy the Earth will get from the Sun (which is directly related to the Sunīs temperature) will increase by almost 10%. That may not seem like much to you, but to a delicately balanced planetīs climate far less then 10% can mean the difference between life and death. When scientists examine computer models for a future climate under the revved up Sun they see a Greenhouse effect gone wild. The polar ice caps will be history, and much of the fertile land will be flooded. As the Sunīs output continues to increase so much water is evaporated into the atmosphere that even the stratosphere gets wet. Sunlight can then break apart the water molecules allowing the hydrogen atoms to escape into space. No more water, no more life. The world as we know it will have ended.

One of the greatest revolutions in our understanding of the last thirty years is that biospheres are delicate things. While we donīt have to start packing yet it is clear that the Earth does not have a comfortable five billion year tenure as life bearing planet. At some point, somebodyīs great-great-etc grandkids are going to have to start thinking about a move.

[link to www.mhhe.com]

band
:savetata:


Favorite Quote - "I just fucking love outer space, it has all those planets and stars and shit." - Mister Obvious 2009
Die Bunker  (OP)

User ID: 18685
United States
11/28/2005 12:09 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Sunīs Death: Sooner Rather than Later?
How old is the Sun?
(by Amara Graps)


Dating the Sun is an indirect process. There are several independent ways of estimating the age and they all give nearly the same answer: about 5 billion years.

The age of the Sun can be estimated from the ages obtained from radioactive dating of the oldest meteorites. This may seem odd at first, but in fact it is extremely likely that the solar system (i.e. th Sun, planets, asteroids etc.) formed as one unit. Therefore the age of the Sun should be close to the age of the meteorites, which can be found using the method of radioactive dating.

G.J. Wasserburg obtained a meteoritic age of (4.57 +/- 0.01) x 10^9 years and D.B. Guenther (1989, Astrophysical Journal 339, 1156) estimated that hydrogen burning started shortly thereafer (40 million (0.04 +/- .01) x 10^9 years later).

Additional evidence comes from the Earth. The oldest Earth rocks are also about 4.6 billion years old. The oldest fossils, found in Australia, are about 3.5 bilion years old. The presence of fossils in rocks indicates that the Earth was a suitable place for life when the fossils formed. This implies that the Sun was luminous at that time. [Of course we canīt say exactly how long before the fossil formed the Sun was like it is today, but it does give us a lower bound.]

What is meant by "luminous?" We mean that the Sun was at or near the stable part of its lifetime called the "main sequence" more than 3.6 billion years ago. Viewing the Sun as a star on the main sequence, is very useful and important for astronomers because they have a model called "The Standard Solar Model" that views the Sun at stages in its life while it is burning hydrogen and converting that to helium. The model can be run forward and backward in time, and the astronomers can check the observable quantities in the model like luminosity, solar radius, composition, solar p-mode frequencies, and so on with our real Sun. They can stop the model at any time during its main sequence. If what we see from our Sun matches the quantities in the model for a specific age, then we have one more piece of information of what we think that the age of the Sun is.

One complication of checking the Solar Model with our real Sun is the quantity of helium: the "helium abundance." That is rather difficult to obtain. According to the Dalsgaard article (see below), the solar spectrum is too complicated to accurately measure the helium abundance, so that one parameter has to be estimated (one infers the helium abundance by matching the observed solar radius and luminosity in the solar models). It turns out this affects the estimated age very little.

[link to solar-center.stanford.edu]
:savetata:


Favorite Quote - "I just fucking love outer space, it has all those planets and stars and shit." - Mister Obvious 2009
Die Bunker  (OP)

User ID: 18685
United States
11/28/2005 12:14 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Sunīs Death: Sooner Rather than Later?
And for creationist equal time I submit the following analysis:

Is The Sun An Age Indicator?


CRSQ Volume 26(2) September 1989


Don B. DeYoung and David E. Rush




Abstract

Questions on the age of the sun necessarily hinge on how it produces its enormous energy. Long-age evolutionists favor thermonuclear fusion, the only known process that could last for billions of years. Young-age creationists counter that the evidence for fusion is scanty at best, and many have readily adopted data which seems to show that the sun is shrinking. If so, it could be heating itself by gravitational collapse instead of fusion. However, such data is probably in error, and, in any case is so much larger than the rate actually necessary to produce the sunīs heat as to be irrelevant. The sun may be heated by gravitational collapse, by fusion, or a combination of both - there is simply not enough evidence to tell. The sun is therefore not an age indicator one way or the other.



-------------------------------------------------------------​-------------------



Introduction

In 1979, noted astronomer John Eddy of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and High Altitude Observatory in Boulder, Colorado, and Aram Boornazian, a mathematician in private practice, made a dramatic announcement: the sun is shrinking. By analyzing measurements of solar transits made at the Royal Greenwich Observatory since 1836 and the U.S. Naval Observatory since 1846 (for the original purpose of determining exactly when is high noon), they calculated that the sun is apparently shrinking at the rate of 5 ft/hr in diameter (0.1% per century, 2 arc-sec/century). When they considered more tenuous data from observations of solar eclipses for the past four centuries, they saw some evidence for a loner term solar contraction. They pointed out that such a contraction could produce a significant portion of the sunīs luminosity (Eddy and Boornazian, 1979; Lubkin, 1979).

For those committed to a view of the sun as several billion years old, and for those who accepted Eddy and Boorzanianīs interpretation of the data, this was seen as only part of a long solar cycle or pulsation. Such a large rate of contraction could obviously not be maintained for long, they reasoned, and so a cyclic change was assumed. Actually observed solar cycles range from five minute oscillations to, perhaps, several centuries in the case of sunspots. Some are regular, but some are irregular coughs and sputters. Eddy laments "I donīt think that such irregularity is a mark of health. I think itīs the mark of a shaky, rickety machine" (Bell, 1978).

Some young-age creationists, on the other hand, eagerly accepted the initial report, including Akridge, 1980; Hanson, 1981; Hinderliter, 1980a, 1980b; Steidl, 1980; Taylor, 1984; Chaffin, 1987; Barnes, 1987; Benton, 1987. They used it as evidence that the sun generates its heat not by thermonuclear fusion but by gravitational collapse, and hence cannot be more than 30 million years old (Appendix A-C). Some (e.g. Akridge) also used the uniformitarianīs favorite cliche, "The present is the key to the past" to extrapolate the 5 ft/hr rate backwards to obtain a time when the sun would have engulfed the earth. This was on the order of 20 million years ago, and would also set an upper limit to the age of life on the earth that is obviously much less than evolution requires. Had this been done merely to poke fun at the evolutionistīs most sacred principle, all would have been fine. But using the data as serious evidence for a young sun, and hence a young solar system and earth, is not valid.


Problem Analysis

There are three main problems with placing undue emphasis on solar diameter measurements. Each of these will be discussed in detail.

1. Eddy and Boornazianīs results are suspect.

A number of other observers do not accept Eddy and Boornazianīs conclusions. They do so on the basis of other historical data (e.g. transits of Mercury), and a reanalysis of the Greenwich data, which was gathered using several different instruments by different observers at different locations (Gilliland, 1981; Brown, 1982; Labonte and Howard, 1981; Sofia, et al., 1985; Parkinson, 1983; Parkinson et al., 1980; Endal and Twigg, 1982; Krasinsky et al., 1985; Dunham et al., 1980; Shapiro, 1980; Sofia et al., 1979; Ribes et al., 1987; OīDell and Van Helden, 1987). Some of these writers suggest a slight contraction of the sun, but most see no real change. Eddy and Boornazian themselves have been silent on the matter, neither retracting nor defending their results. Accordingly, the controversy they stirred up seems to be settling down. From 1984 through mid-1988, their original articles have been referred to only four times in non-creationist scientific literature, according to the Citation Index. These are articles by Dransinsky et al. (1985), Sofia et al. (1985), Ribes et al. (1987), and OīDell and Van Helden (1987). Eddy has not referred to his articles since their publication (again, according to the Citation Index). Even if the initial report had been accepted by everyone, creationists would still not be justified in applying the gross extrapolation the uniformitarian principle entails to those results and then proclaiming "proof" of a young earth.

Because of Eddyīs prestige within the astronomical community, attention has been given not only toward reanalyzing historical data but also to gathering current measurements of the solar diameter (Lites, 1983; Rosch and Yerle, 1983, Sofia et al, 1985; Morrison et al., 1988). Methods of measurements are being standardized, special instruments have been developed, and more accurate results should be available in coming years.

The sun diameter topic has been complicated by the efforts of some to caricature creationists. For example, Van Till (1988) has titled solar changes as a false "legend" which creationists alone continue to believe and perpetuate. Three comments are in order: First, the point is well taken, but it goes entirely too far. As the list of references shows, discussion of solar changes still remains active both in creationist and in secular science. The question of solar changes has not been settled as completely as Van Till implies. A science topic which is less than 10 years old certainly does not deserve the term "legend." Second, creationists have always shown a diversity of views concerning the solar diameter problem. Third, it is unfair to connect the creation view with the word "legend." This seems to reveal a hidden agenda of maligning the Biblical foundation of creationism.

2. The suggested rate of solar diameter change is irrelevant to theoretical gravitational contraction.

If the sun were slowly shrinking, each particle as it fell inward would release gravitational potential energy as heat. This heat would be radiated away to space, thereby lowering the temperature, reducing the supporting pressure, and allowing the cycle to begin again with more contraction. The theoretical rate of gravitational collapse necessary to produce the sunīs current luminosity has been known for a long time. Its principles were worked out by Helmholtz (1854) and Kelvin (1861). All the sunīs current heat could be produced by a contraction rate of only .02 ft per hour (Appendix B), some 250 times less than Eddy and Boornazianīs rate. They were aware of this, and therefore suggested that only a thin outer shell is contracting, with the massive interior staying at constant diameter. Some creationists (Akridge, 1980; Hinderliter, 1980b; Steidl, 1979) have readily adopted this view. It enables them to keep the suggested contraction rate (which throws the evolutionistīs long time scale into jeopardy) without overheating the sun. But it is plainly an ad hoc hypothesis, since the only reason it is put forth is to reconcile Eddy and Boornazianīs interpretation of the data with the theoretical contraction rate. It is certainly speculative to (1) extrapolate the questionable 5 ft/hr rate (2) in a straight line manner (it should vary inversely as the radius) (3) for vast lengths of time, as Akridge has done (even though he qualifies his reasoning).

The theoretical gravitational collapse rate of .02 ft/hr (at the present value of the diameter) is much too small to be seen, if indeed it is occurring. It will be centuries before a new generation of instruments, sophisticated though they are, gather enough information to pass judgment. The reason is that a rate of .02 ft/hr, or 3 miles/century amounts to only .007 arc-sec/century, an extremely small change. The best ground-based instruments are limited for this purpose to about .25 arc-sec of resolution. Satellites may do somewhat better in the future, but there is probably inherent uncertainty in determining the "edge" of a hot, active ball of gas to preclude definitive contraction measurements of this magnitude for generations to come. Even if the 5 ft/hr rate were true, that is still only 2 arc-sec/century, a rate that would take many decades to verify, especially if there really is an 80-year cyclic variation in diameter, as Parkinson (1983) claims.

Creationists have always been justified in pointing out that gravitational collapse could be providing the sunīs heat. Theoretically, it could have been doing so for up to 30 million years (Appendix C). The creationist can easily live within this constraint, but the evolutionist requires much more time. He must come up with another source of energy. The question both must ask is, Is there any other possible source of energy? The answer appears to be, yes, it is probable that hydrogen fusion is energizing the sun.

3. Theory and observation indicates that thermonuclear fusion is probably working in the sun.

Calculations show that the interior of the sun experiences an extremely high temperature and pressure which should force nuclear fusion to occur (Appendix A). In addition, a "laboratory experiment" that shows fusion actually is possible is the hydrogen bomb. These two lines of reasoning can be used to say the sun could be burning hydrogen. But is there any evidence that it actually is? The answer is a fairly certain, yes.

It is generally conceded by creationists and evolutionists that a byproduct of fusion reaction, the neutrino, is detected on earth. However, the evidence is equivocal, since the neutrino signal is barely above the background noise, and is only a fraction (usually put at 1/3) of what it should be. These well known "missing neutrinos" are seen as a major problem of modern solar physics (DeYoung, 1987 p. 64; Zeilik and Smith, 1987 p. 276; Waldrop, 1985; Gingras, 1987). In addition, the faint signal is nondirectional. Sensitive experiments are now underway to determine if the signal is indeed directed from the sun. Results are expected within two or three years.

Of perhaps greater promise is the proposed test to detect low-energy neutrinos (Hudson, 1987; Perkins, 1988), which the present experiments cannot detect. By conventional theory, they should be produced by nearly all of the basic proton-proton chain reactions, whereas the high-energy ones actually detected are produced by only .02% of the reactions. There should therefore be more of the low-energy variety, and their detection from the sunīs direction would be virtual proof that hydrogen fusion is powering the sun. Conversely, their lack of detection would be strong evidence that fusion is not powering the sun. Low-energy neutrinos will occasionally interact with gallium to produce germanium, so scientists have gathered much of earthīs meager supply of gallium and concentrated it in two detectors. One is in the Soviet Union and the other in Western Europe. Both are due to start in 1989. Another type of neutrino detector, using heavy water is in the planning stage (Aardsma, 1987). The instrument will be able to measure the direction of incoming neutrinos, an important factor in the solar neutrino question.

The missing neutrinos have obviously sparked a great deal of international interest. Maddox (1988) comments, "However this tale turns out, it will remain a marvel that so much work, experimental as well as theoretical, has been stimulated by a single discrepant observation." As if the present data has not already caused enough trouble with standard solar theory, there has recently emerged yet another intriguing speculation on the mysterious neutrinos. Maddox (1988) writes,

Now there has arisen a further source of distraction in a field already sufficiently confused - the possibility that some of the conversion of chlorine to argon nuclei observed originally by Davis may be driven not by neutrinos from the core of the Sun, but by solar flares. The suggestion appears to have been made last year by Davis himself, based on an apparent correlation between records of the Homestake equipment and the presence of flares on the sun . . . Evidently, if this speculation were correct, the discrepancy between the and measured fluxes of neutrinos from the sun would be further magnified.

However, Maddox goes on to say that other detectors have found no such correlation between solar flares and neutrinos.

There may be a correlation between sunspot number, apparent semidiameter of the sun, solar irradiance, and neutrinos. If so, ". . . then it is almost inevitable that the nuclear reactions rates in the core are varying with the cycle" (Gough, 1988). What further modifications in fusion theory this may require has apparently not yet been explored. The neutrinos that are now detected, then, are evidence for both sides of the solar energy question. The evolutionist says they show at least some of the sunīs heat is produced by fusion, while the creationist says that , if they even exist, they only show that some other source , i.e. gravitational contraction, accounts for most of the sunīs energy.

It is worthwhile to note in passing what the evolutionist considers his strongest evidence for fusion: ". . . gravitational contraction can sustain the Sun at its present luminosity for only 15 million years; some other energy source must be sought if we are to account for billions of years of sunshine" (Zeilik and Smith, p. 274. italics theirs).

Now, life has existed on Earth for more than three billion years . . . and during that interval, at least, the Sun must have been shining more or less stably with a luminosity close to its present value (Shu).

Geological evidence, however, indicates that the terrestrial crust has an age of several billion years, and it is surely to be expected that the Sun is at least as old as the Earth . . . We must conclude that, although gravitational contraction may play an important role during short phases of stellar evolution, another source must be responsible for most of the energy output of a star (Novotny, p. 248).


Other Solar Energy Considerations

As further evidence against fusion, and for contraction, Steidl (1980) mentions what is now famous in solar physics as the 160 minute oscillation. This was detected via Doppler shifts of the solar surface which were interpreted as radial pulsations. The long period implies conditions in the sunīs interior which do not fit into modern solar theory. (Deep shock waves would efficiently transmit energy, setting up a lower temperature gradient.) The discoverers say bluntly, "The interpretation of this phenomena seems to cause much theoretical difficulty" (Severny et al., 1976).

However, the 160 minute cycle is not universally acknowledged. Woodard and Hudson (1983) and van der Raay (1980) have not found it, and Hudson has recently said, "Following its initial apparition . . . the 160 minute oscillation has remained elusive both theoretically and also observationally" (Hudson, 1987). The following papers form the majority who do accept the 160 minute oscillations and attempt to explain it will aid those interested in pursuing this new science of "helioseismology" and its implications: Severny et al., 1976; Hill et al., 1986; Grec et al., 1980; Isaak, 1982; Claverie et al., 1981; Delache and Scherer, 1983; Scherer and Wilcox, 1983; Ando, 1986.

Steidl (1980) lists "one final consideration," which is important. He sites Cameron, an astrophysicist with Harvard University and the Smithsonian Institution, who calculated the maximum temperature obtainable by the standard evolutionary collapsing gas cloud theory of star formation as one million degrees Kelvin, or much too cool to initiate hydrogen fusion (Cameron, 1976). Steidl has a valid point. Whenever and wherever evolutionists start talking about origins they are quickly in deep trouble. But with their sacred philosophy, they usually just shrug their way out of it, as Cameron does here:

The existence of this large uncertainty about the way in which nuclear reactions turn on in the sun is an indication that the pre-main sequence evolution of the sun is not presently understood.

This natural origin problem is a strong testimony to the supernatural creation of the sun. The question we are addressing however, is not one of origins but one of operation. For that we need only do some simple calculations to arrive at a solar core temperature of 12 million K, which (with the help of quantum mechanics) should be enough to sustain hydrogen fusion (Appendix A).


Conclusion

The evidence, whether from analysis of historical data, theory, or observation, is not conclusive as to how the sun heats itself. We can say that the sun may be shrinking, not that it definitely is.

[link to www.creationresearch.org]
:savetata:


Favorite Quote - "I just fucking love outer space, it has all those planets and stars and shit." - Mister Obvious 2009
Die Bunker  (OP)

User ID: 18685
United States
11/28/2005 12:35 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Sunīs Death: Sooner Rather than Later?
bump
:savetata:


Favorite Quote - "I just fucking love outer space, it has all those planets and stars and shit." - Mister Obvious 2009
thanks for the read
User ID: 44575
United States
11/28/2005 01:13 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Sunīs Death: Sooner Rather than Later?
Iīm not sure why Iīm constantly in awe that we have a star in our backyard.

Interesting articles. Things to ponder. I love our star.
johnisevil

User ID: 43095
Canada
11/28/2005 01:23 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Sunīs Death: Sooner Rather than Later?
Why do people paste entire articles then post the link at the end? Why not just post the link so that a thread made up of 5 posts isnīt run on which most people donīt read?
LoRd-CoNNoR

User ID: 15550
Australia
11/28/2005 04:55 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Sunīs Death: Sooner Rather than Later?
so is there ACTUALLY anything we can do to stop it?
Or just put up with it and die?
28 days... 6 hours... 42 minutes... 12 seconds. That... is when the world... will end
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 4151
Iceland
11/28/2005 05:44 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Sunīs Death: Sooner Rather than Later?
The old thermonuclear model of the Sun is probably all wrong and is being discarded by a growing number of scientists.

The emerging model is that of an electric universe and sun.

Read all about it here:

[link to www.thunderbolts.info]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 2167
United States
11/28/2005 07:13 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Sunīs Death: Sooner Rather than Later?
Cease And Desist Die Bunker...

No one here wants to hear the truth or actually learn anything...
Die Bunker (OP)
User ID: 18685
United States
11/28/2005 10:34 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Sunīs Death: Sooner Rather than Later?
"Why do people paste entire articles then post the link at the end?"

The article is relevant to current discussions regarding the suns intensity or changes in temperature coupled with its age. The means for calculating the age of the sun and what we may see as we approach its demise are given in three very well written articles. Each article contains a slightly different view or direction.

I include the article for discussion and a link to give credit to the author and provide access to further information not copied here. There is a page full of equations I omitted for the reason you suggest.

I consider this different from the diatribes often posted in those long threads. If you are not interested, do not read it.
Die Bunker nli (OP)
User ID: 18685
United States
11/28/2005 10:41 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Sunīs Death: Sooner Rather than Later?
"The emerging model is that of an electric universe and sun."

You may be interested in a book titled, "The Big Bang Never Happened" I own this book and will hunt it down in my library for more information if the ISBN if you wish.

It discusses a plasma based Universe and related concepts. Of course it wrestles with the Big Bang rightly or wrongly, but much of the theory is based around an electric universe and sun.
Fantasia

User ID: 3539
United States
11/28/2005 10:48 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Sunīs Death: Sooner Rather than Later?
Forum posters often request a link with a copied post, so I always provide one when I can.

OP did the right thing by providing a link with her articles.


Edit to add: Nice post, Die Bunker!
Frodo failed, Bush has the ring!
Die Bunker (OP)
User ID: 18685
United States
11/28/2005 03:08 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Sunīs Death: Sooner Rather than Later?
Thank you.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1373
United States
11/28/2005 03:51 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Sunīs Death: Sooner Rather than Later?
The old thermonuclear model of the Sun is probably all wrong and is being discarded by a growing number of scientists.

The emerging model is that of an electric universe and sun.

Read all about it here:

[link to www.thunderbolts.info]

-----------------

Growing from 1 to 2?

Thereīs no science on that webpage. Just an attempt to sell you a book.

I bet that the number of suckers who buy this book is growing, too.





GLP