>>Hi Mark,
>> Can you comment on the following? Just curious, TIA, Steven Bennett
>>
>>
>
>Steve,
>
>Here's another..
>
>The sun loses approximately five (5) miles a day in size. I don't know if that's radius or diameter so let's go conservative and pick diameter. That means 2.5 miles per day in size of loss with respect to its (the Sun) relation to us (the Earth).
>
>Now, how old are people these days saying that the Earth is? 1 billion years, 4 billion? 7 billion? 12 billion?
>
>Let's pick a measly 3 billion years.
>
>The Earth is approximately 93,000,000 miles from the Sun. By that I'm presuming the outer "skin" if that's the correct kind of thought. Pretty hot though! Now, that depends on a fairly consistent rate of "burn" and from all the observations I've seen in the Universe that's the case. Winding down a bit but VERY CONSISTENT, or at least (allegedly) measured in millions and billions of years - enough for this example.
>
>Soo.. We take 2.5 miles, multiple it by 3,000,000,000 * 356.25 (that would be years of days) and we get 2,739,375,000,000 miles.
>
>Subtract that 93 millon miles and the Earth is some 2,739,282,000,000 INSIDE the outer crust of the Sun.
>
>Goodness, just a few degrees (3/4) average and the whole climate of the Earth changes.
>
>I'd say that it's a pretty remarkeble thing that the Earth survived all those years inside the Sun and was able to retain water and anything else non-charcoal. *g* Seriously nothing would have remained. That would alternatively then require some pretty spontaneous and cataclysmic VERY RECENT geological event.
>
>Where's that evidence?
>
>But, on the other hand, the longer you go, well, the well more done you are. *g*
>
>Has anyone you know ever addressed this little .er.. problem? *g*
>
>The shorter the time frame needed to avoid the heat problem cuts pretty deeply into the alleged time needed for the spontaneous generation of life, let alone chemical reactions. Two different animals (pun intended *g*) I'd think.
>
>Usually about now someone starts getting visibly irrational. *bg*
>
>Best,
>
>DD

There's no reason to get irrational here :-) Your model is such a vast oversimplification of stellar dynamics that I hardly know where to start. Stellar diameter is an equilibrium between the inward force of gravity and the outward force exerted by the pressure of its heated plasma. A superlarge diameter implies a low density and low temperature, insufficient to ignite fusion.

Suffice it to say that stars of the class of Sol don't shrink over time from some immense diameter to what we see now - at least while they're in the hydrogen fusing stage. There is no theoretical, or perhaps more importantly, no observational evidence for this.

It is generally accepted that a few (billion) years from now, as it runs out of fuel, Sol will expand to a red giant, like Betelgeuse. At that time the Earth will indeed be within its diameter and our descendants will be crispy critters.

Time to snap up that beachfront property on Pluto!