Indeed so. However, one might ask the obvious question: Is this a good thing or a bad thing? The equally obvious answer is that this is a good thing. After all, theories are supposed to represent reality in some way, and observation is the practical definition of reality, so altering a theory to fit the observations is clearly what you want to see scientists doing. The common practice in science is to continually adjust any theory, to take into account new and more accurate/precise observations. Only when the adjustments become unreasonable in the context of the model, do we simply scrap the theory altogether and start over again with a new theory.

Looks impressive, but looks can be deceiving. Consider a paragraph from one of my earlier messages in the iron sun discussion:

Now, (0.0275-0.0165)/(0.0275) = 0.40, which is where the "40% decline in the Sun's metalicity" comes from. Metalicity is defined as a ratio Z/X, but if you just look at Z, the fractional metal content of the sun as a whole, the number becomes less than 1%, a rather less impressive looking number.

I am more impressd by the fact that the standard solar model is so sensitive to the sun's metalicity, that if the metal content of the sun is changed by less than 1%, then the consequent implied change in the physical structure of the sun is well outside the parameters allowed by the model. This is exactly what you want from a scientific model, a sensitivity that can be tested at small scales. Prof. Manuel would have us believe that this is a sign of weakness, that somehow the standard model is weak because it has to be adjusted. In fact, the opposite is the case. it is a sign of strength in the standard model that it is homing in on a representation of the sun that varies at the 1% level, not at the 40% level.

Actually, it's not quite that simple. The original neutrino problem was that the count of neutrinos detected from the sun amounted to only about 1/3 of the expected number. Two possible solutions immediately come to mind: (1) the physical model of the sun is in error, and (2) the physical model of a neutrino is in error. In fact, both of these pathways were vigorously pursued, by both solar & particle physicists, each trying to solve the problem in light of their own specialties. Solar physicists were able to show, primarily by helioseismology, that the physical model of the sun was not so uncertain that it could be adjusted to accomodate the observed neutrino counts. But particle physicsts showed that neutrino oscillations (a change from one type of neutrino to another) was a realistic possibility. This latter possiblity of oscillations was supported by counts of solar neutrinos of all 3 types (the original counting experiments were sensitive to one type only), and by neutrino counts at nuclear reactors.

So, neutrino oscillations were not just "proposed", they were proposed after lengthy study, and then they were confirmed. There is no longer any question about this confirmed solution in the community of solar & particle physicists.

Prof. Manuel portrays the standard model as untrustworthy, but his portrayal does not match well with reality. Of course, the standard solar model is not "perfect", and like any scientific model, faces its own share of questions & problems still. But are those problems so large, or the answers to questions so uncertain, that the "slop" in the standard model is large enough to accomodate a "mostly iron" sun? Or perhaps an "electric" sun? I see no indication that it is. And I see no indication that the standard model violates any fundamental sensitivity of the physicst. The standard model is "standard" for a reason, and that reason is not political, or social, or even economic. It is scientiific. The standard model is "standard" because it's the best one available, and the competition, so far, just can't stand the heat of the solar kitchen!