>>The Stanford paper IN NO WAY supports your ludicrous claims...

You seem to need a crutch when it comes to debate. You begin ever post with offensive logical fallacies and just plain stupid comments. It's ignorance like this that gets old very fast. There is nothing "ludicrous" about anything I have claimed.

>>The Stanford paper in fact mentions observations that would seem to be at odds with your claim...

Such as?

>>Just because the author talks of stratification does NOT mean that they are talking about a solid Iron shell.

It doesn't mean they are not talking about an iron shell either! In fact Alexander Kosovichev was quite careful NOT to characterize it at all!

>> In fact, in reading the references that you claim support your wild claim it becomes rather apparent that you either do not understand what they are saying or that you are deliberately misrepresenting them.

You're full of it. I've even posted Alexander Kosovichev's explanations on my website just to be fair and to be in integrity. You are deliberately misrepresenting ME and it's quite apparent you don't know what you are talking about.

>>Either way it says little good about your credibility... For instance the Stanford paper refers to a variable radius for the sun, how is this at all compatible with your claims that it has a solid surface...?

The sun's surface goes through constant electricial errosion and experiences growth on the top side while shrinking underneath. The fact this layer has a specific thickness and blocks plasma flows shoots your whole convection zone ideas in the foot.

>>How could such a surface exist without collapsing?

How does the earth's surface exist without collapsing? PRESSURE.

>>WHY should we discard a model based on decades of real science for one that seems to be delusional and NOT based on science at all.

So any idea you don't put faith in the way you put faith in the gas model theory is not "delusional"? You have no scientific arguement here, just insult and repetitive BS.

>>The problems with your "theory" are numerous and were patiently addressed on the Bad Astronomy forum... a forum, I see, that had to temporarily ban you for your unprofessional behavior and refusal to back up your claims.

Actually I'm still posting there and my banning had NOTHING at all to do with refusing to back up my claims. They just didn't much care for my attitude, and I assure you they won't care for yours either.

>>Your image manipulation is not 'evidence' and it is laughable that you think it is.

The fact you think I created or manipulated any of the images on my website is laughable and it clear you don't know what you are talking about. I did not personally create ANY of the images on my website. The only thing I put together was a movie of running difference SOHO images that NASA created. All I did was string them together in movie maker. I didn't create even a single solitary image on that website just so nobody could make such a stupid claim. Evidently I overestimated your comprehension skills.

>>It is no better than the loons that manipulate pictures of Mars in order to find alien artifacts. There is nothing to your claims that has any merit, and there is MUCH data and common sense that flat out contradicts your 'theory'....

If I actually created any of the images on my website, this would sound so sad. There is nothing about this model which is not based on common sense and there is no OBSERVATIONAL data to contradict this theory. If you disagree, put up or shut up. Let's SEE your evidence?

>>There is a REASON why people are laghing at you....

Some people like you are just ignorant. Ignorant people laughed at Eistein at first and Newton too, and Galileo as well. If you think your ignorance or laughter bothers me personally think again. I just feel sorry for you.