Thork has confessed to trolling and this post is an obvious example. Don't worry about Thork. He has no credibility here any longer.
Why thank you ClockTower. However mindlessly ranting on about credibility brings you no closer to unravelling the deception within the posts. How is your stock in credibility? You are still arguing the earth is round on a children's science forum with low content posts and a belligerent refusal to produce anything worth reading yourself. I have retired as a FE proponent, and will not get sucked into earth's form debates, but will defend my posts as at least having something in them. Albeit often deliberately twisted.
The rebuttal post is lame by the way.
It is modeled as a gas cloud that happens to contain nuclear materials.
No. Hydrogen, helium, lithium etc are not nuclear materials. It is the intense gravity that creates a nucler reaction. A star cannot have nuclear materials. They are all heavy elements. Hydrogen turns to helium, helium to lithium etc all the way up to iron. Once iron is created (Iron being the most stable element) that is the death of the star. Heavy elements are then only created in the ensuing supernova. Our sun hasn't gone supernova. Our sun hasn't really got into even the lithium stage yet. It is 74% hydrogen, 24% helium.
http://www.universetoday.com/18088/what-is-the-sun-made-of/however the actual mass or power density of the sun is irrelevant to our survival
Wrong
If the sun was one million times larger or smaller yet had the same power output, neglecting gravity effects, we as dependent organisms would not notice the difference.
Wrong. If it was a million times bigger we would be engulfed by it. A million times smaller and you wouldn't see it but the radiation would be so concentrated by reducing size and upping power, I wouldn't be able to reply to your ridiculous assessment. Consider other effects of the sun other than heat or light or gravity as well. A million times bigger? How long would a year be?
Rebuttal B barely warrants comment.
A nuclear bomb is purposefully designed to cause destruction. It is not a conventional power source because its power is too great to be usefully harnessed
.
And the sun is a conventional power source then? Designed to heat your kettle and run your fridge?
Rebuttal C.
the ratio of nuclear material in the sun would be 1:6400.
There is still no nuclear material in the sun. Nuclear reactions take place in sun due to intense gravity squashing atoms together causing a nuclear reaction. It is not the same thing. Uranium and plutonium bombs work by using unstable elements past their critical mass. Nuclear reactions occur when neutrons are fired at closely packed atoms with heavy nuclei (uranium or plutonium isotopes). These heavy nuclei break apart into lighter nuclei when hit by a neutron, in turn generating more neutrons which bombard other nuclei, creating a chain reaction.
This explains why the Sun does not reach a critical state and explode like a nuclear fusion bomb
So clearly it does not. You can work that one out for yourself. PS - Little Boy and Fat man were fission bombs. The ones I used in the example. I believe the planet had to wait until 1952 before the USA detonated the first fusion bomb. The USSR a year later in 1953. Lastly Deuterium is an isotope of hydrogen. The sun is using Hydrogen as its direct source of power converting it into Helium. There is thought to be little deuterium in the interior of the Sun and other stars, as at temperatures there nuclear fusion reactions that consume deuterium happen much faster than the proton-proton reaction that creates deuterium.
you get a D-
ClockTower, you just get a sad shake of the head. Don't slag me off, and I won't feel the feed to post in the upper fora.
