A theory was presented. Many of us continued to ask questions of, presumably, you the author. However, when answers are returned that are accusatory, glib, unresponsive, or misdirecting, it becomes an exercise in futility to explore the model further.

For instance, on the question of density, it was dismissed by the caveat that we don't know enough about inertial mass. This is not adequate to answer the question. The implications are that the theory is correct, and all other science is wrong. This is not a cautious or circumspect attitude with regards to one's own research. With regard to element abundances, the attitude is to take spectra at face value, yet ignore the solar spectra that clearly demonstrate a dearth of neon in quantity enough to account for the alleged effects, and solar spectra that demonstrate a black-body curve rather than a large neon spike. One can tell abundances of elements from spectra as well as presence. The assertions of solid surface are apparently jettisoned in favor of a liquid-silicon model to account for convection. All this on top of a surface temperature (measured by the black-body radiation curve) at a mean of 6000 degrees Centigrade. This, by the way, even in the sunspots (about 2000 degrees cooler) is above the heat of vaporization (boiling point) of iron, silicon, and calcium.

From what has been conveyed thus far, for your theory to work as advertised, our understanding of gravity and inertial mass as well as quantum physics (where black body radiation theory originates) is incorrect.

That is the reason you are still being asked questions, specifically about this section of your conjecture. How is mass to be calculated if not by gravitational interaction? How is black body radiation to be interpreted if not by an assumption of quanta of energy? And how, if all of these understandings are incorrect, did the SOHO satellite get to where it is and return the data it has using the current (as stated above) understandings of gravitational mass and quantum physics?