This is my first post, so forgive my naivate and any glaring errors. ops: I am a social scientist with a passing interest in many of the things on this message board, though I do not claim to offer any actual expertise on this subject beyond what I remember from high school physics and what I have learned through occasional readings.

I do dabble quite frequently into philosophy of science, however, and that is why I have found this topic so intriguing to scan through. Michael -- I commend you for taking time to explore so complex a topic outside of your usual profession. I read your manuscript, and was impressed, if not by the content, then by the conviction and time you have spent on it. That being said, there are some fundamental problems related to scientific progression that, if I knew nothing else, would lead me to question your work.

1) Science constantly progresses. All of our work builds on the work of others (true for natural and social sciences). This is why so much time is spent reviewing the work of others, examining what holes need to be filled, and then attempting to fill them. I am not as familiar with works published in astronomy, but I would assume that most published work begins with some review of existing work, holes in that work, and where your work fits in. The problem with your manuscript is that it seems to skip from Galileo to you. To be taken more seriously, your manuscript needs to make as strong a case as possible for the argument you are critiquing, and then explain why yours is better. Starting with Galileo in your piece immediately gives the appearance of starting with a straw man. You need to begin with a critique of the most current work, preferably work that uses evidence from SOHO, TRACE, etc. and show why that work is flawed.

2) Take seriously the critiques of others. In response to the argument that we know the density and mass of the sun, you keep responding that a) we need to know exact composition of the layers; and b) something about the effects of electromagnetism and a ferrite surface having unknown effects. If your model is superior, however, you should be able to calculate with relative ease the amount of each of the component elements in the sun and then postulate the thickness of the layers. If, on the other hand, you are positing that we cannot understand the forces acting on the sun, establish concrete, testable hypotheses of what you would expect those forces to be and ways we can test them.

While I am dubious about your argument, again, I am not criticizing you for doing something new. With my limited knowledge, the conventional view seems more compelling. For me to take your argument more seriously (in your manuscript) would require a great deal more effort of placing your work in the context of the most recent work. From the replies on the board, it seems that current work actually explains most observed phenomena of the sun. Make the strongest argument for your opponent, and then explain why you are better.

But then again, I'm only a social scientist.