Mozina, you're a real piece of work.

You put far too much faith in pictures. Pictures don't lie, but when the subject in the image is sufficiently complex, interpretations are highly subjective.

Math, on the other hand, doesn't lie and is totally non-subjective. Math is the only science that thrives on absolute proof. And when you can create math models that predict the energy and particulate output of hydrogen fusion, and they match what we observe for the sun and its mass, we're far more likely right than anyone who says the sun is mostly iron.

Don't put so much faith in pictures. They tell a thousand words but it comes out different for each person who sees them.

I think the Birkeland photo looks only moderately similar to the pattern seen on the sun in the SOHO image. And I'm not saying that to be contrary, I mean it in the nicest way possible.

Can I get a "yea" for everyone who agrees with me on the following statement?

THE PICTURES YOU POST EXPLAIN NOTHING!

Absolutely nothing.

You still haven't explained how your model accounts for the sun's observed mass. We know how much mass it has by observing the gravitational effect on planetary motions, including Mercury! If it were mostly iron at its current size, we'd see a more powerful gravitational effect.

That's your biggest challenge. Not trying to explain some of the more complex solar phenomenon, just the simple basics which are well established!

__________________
My son is my universe.