[bondserv]

Hello Pat et al,

Did the article mention anything about the sun shrinking because of burning? Seemed to me they were using, "The data Eddy and Boomazian examined spanned a 400-year period of solar observation".

It doesn't seem like they were speaking of a theoretical burning shrinkage of the sun, but an observable physical shrinkage. "Furthermore, assuming (by uniformitarian-type reasoning) that the rate of shrinkage has not changed with time".

Seems like an honest examination of observable evidence to me. What else can we do to make assessments?

[HiTech RedNeck]

Did the article mention anything about the sun shrinking because of burning?

Neither did I.

[HiTech RedNeck]

A question I am trying to raise is whether the known mechanisms for star fusion (we've verified them to some extent because we can get them to work just fine on earth with hydrogen bombs) would even work with a mostly-hydrogen sun as large as the earth's orbit but anywhere near its present mass plus what it has lost over that time via E=MC**2 radiation. One also needs to look at the second and higher order derivatives of the size, not just the first derivative, to estimate a trend. Before the mid 20th century we didn't even have the capability of observing the sun from outside the earth's atmosphere, which significantly distorts the image of heavenly bodies (e.g. the twinkle of stars), so these measurements would be affected by atmospheric factors. Measurements from outer space would be the only really reliable ones.