The real sun
The great physicist Newton told us that quite contrary to our everyday experience there is no such thing as a 'heavy' mass. An apple falls because it is attracted by earth. So where today's solar fusion theory assumes the biggest forces - at the center of a celestial body - they are in reality zero. Gravitational forces at the center of a celestial body simply cancel out. This may seem paradox at first glance but is basic vector math . Gravitational forces decay to zero when you approach the center.
How today's astrophysics sees the nuclear energy production in the sun (see e.g.: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/articles/fusion/index.html )
This cancelation of the gravitational forces at the center of a celestial body is the reason why we find a solid core at the center of the earth (and as newer evidence shows at the center of the moon and the sun (see here or here : "solid body rotation") also, the gas and ice giants (Jupiter, Saturn...) are since long supposed to pocess a solid core and also the small bodies (see e.g. here) and this is the reason why celestial bodies of very different sizes are possible.
On Dec 13,2010 NASA reported: “The whole solar hemisphere erupted simultaneously in an avalanche effect that had been triggered in the tiny solar core and propagated outwards”. This brings more and more solar experts to agree that the sun has a solid core (Why this takes so long till it is fully accepted is the fact that this invalidates today's astronomy (and astrophysics) in whole - except f.i. wobbling stars. In a nutshell, today's astronomy classifies stars according to the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram. While this is in the first place only a luminosity/spectral type diagram, it is interpreted according to today's stellar astrophysics (fusion-theory) as a direct indication of the masses of the stars. This connection was introduced in 1926 by Arthur Eddington in his book 'The Internal Constitution of the Stars', initiating thereby today's astrophysics. Wikipedia:"In the process of developing his stellar models, he sought to overturn current thinking about the sources of stellar energy. Jeans and others defended the Kelvin–Helmholtz mechanism, which was based on classical mechanics, while Eddington speculated broadly about the qualitative and quantitative consequences of possible proton-electron annihilation and nuclear fusion processes." But also supernovae etc. are constructs and interpretations of the fusion theory. Read more here and here.). It seems this was the event and the reason that solar researchers started in 2011 for the first time to take into account that: "the sun might not be symmetric on the inside". If you can't believe it, you should read the whole thread.
Then there is the fact that the surface of the sun has a much lower average temperature than the corona, 5800 kelvin compared to the corona's temperature of one to three million kelvin. There is absolutely no lucid explanation how a fusion reactor at the center of the sun should heat the corona through a rather cold solar surface. Which now also other scientists see as 'mystery' which needs explanation. See also here and here. See also "The Sun as an X-ray Source". The search experiments for the missing solar neutrinos has reached the third generation. Popular explanation. But also other evidence challenges the assumption that H-fusion is the main source of energy that powers the Sun .
And "Despite more than 50 years of effort, today’s nuclearfusion reactors still require more power to run than they can produce". And compare this Sun spot record over last 60 years with the oscillogram that the here downloadable program computes (this program is no more downloadable, because it was a dos-program and you would need special graphics driver programs which today no more exist). You will be surprised... More here or under links.
Now if there are additional surface forces added - as for example in the case of the central body of a planetary system - we have a shining star. These forces additionally melt the thin outer crust. How we name the effect in the end is a matter of semantics, not physics. This is the whole 'mystery' of stars and therefor our sun.
Already in 2015 the mainstream astrophysics theory tried to build a bridge to a complete new understanding: "Effects associated with rotation can modify stellar properties, altering the luminosities, surface temperatures, sizes, and shapes of stars in ways that are unaccounted for in nonrotating models." There should be no doubt that already this statement invalidates all actual textbooks on astronomy and astrophysics. See also this new study from 2018: the Sun's gravity is getting weaker by 6.13 +-1.47 *1014 per year(61 parts per quadrillion).
As is known since long the sun rotates very much faster at its equator than at the poles, another fact for which today's solar fusion energy theory is not able to give a plausible explanation. The here downloadable program calculates the thus produced energy (in a preliminary calculation - if we understand the process fully, much better calculations will be possible) to 1.2 x 1022Ws to 2.0 x 1023Ws. The difference to the here on earth measurable 2.6 x 1026Ws to 1 x 1027Ws is due to plasma processes and other not regarded sources of heat in this preliminary calculation. Any theory which is not able to give a satisfying explanation for this differential rotation is bound to fail in the end.
Friction in the shear-layer produces heat (the measured 5800 Kelvin on the surface of the sun) which in turn produces convectional plasma flow in turbulent warps and waves. This turbulent action and induction produce in the plasma layer electric currents and magnetic fields which are responsible for the flares and coronal mass ejections of magnetized plasma gas. The flares heat the corona through resistive heating. This functions very similar to the toaster you use in the morning to toast your bread. The mass ejections are short circuits when two inversely polarized flares attract each other and finally collide.
Rotation period on the surface of the Sun
Credit: The satellite Solar and Heliospheric observatory an international project of ESA and NASA
If you simulate our solar system in computers you get a rotation of the sun as you see in the picture below (expressed a little bit more scientifically 'spin-orbit-coupling'). And although this movement is really small and slow - this is the reason why it has been detected so late - it has, considered the enormous mass of the sun, enormous consequences as you can see in the photos above. And you don't need a degree in physics to understand that flares occure exactly there where you would expect them to occure (in the high resolution pictures above you can see them also on the surface of the sun). For more indepth simulations see here.
The NY-Times: The Wobbling Sun (this simulation was first accomplished by this site)
Another big problem of astronomy is solved as a side effect. A big mystery for astro physics in general has always been the much too low angular momentum of the sun (search for angular momentum problem.). The Sun contains about 1000 times more mass than all the planets combined, but it possesses a mere 0.3 (0.5) percent of the total angular momentum of the solar system. "Jupiter (..)has about 60 percent of the solar system's angular momentum. The four jovian planets account for well over 99 percent of the total angular momentum of the solar system". (see also: "Astronomy today",Chaisson,McMillan,2005 Pearson Prentice Hall) (Non-uniform rotation presents a certain problem besides others. So the number should be taken as an orientation.)
other links if you want to read more on the subject:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w4210m1j5rv56144/
http://www.zipcon.net/~swhite/docs/astronomy/Angular_Momentum.html (sun 4% of total angular momentum)
www.phys.utk.edu/daunt/Astro/.../Ch_15.ppt (four jovian planets account for more than 99% )
http://science.jrank.org/pages/6266/Solar-System-angular-momentum-problem.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Solar_System_formation_and_evolution_hypotheses (the nebular/protoplanetary hypothesis is almost disproved)
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast221/lectures/lec17.html
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1969PASJ...21...25O/0000026.000.html
at the end of this paper there is a condensed rough representation of today's theory concerning this point but also what makes today's theory so vulnerable to the argumentation of creationists etc:
http://cass246.ucsd.edu/~ppadoan/new_website/PHYSICS_1A/Lecture21.pdf ( no more accessible to the public? )
Links to Esa sun videos and photographs:
http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?topic=Sun&subtopic=Surface+features&subm1=GO&keyword=+--%3E+Keyword (solar surface)
http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?topic=Sun&subtopic=Sunspots&subm1=GO&keyword=+--%3E+Keyword (sunspots)
http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?topic=Sun&subtopic=Eruptions&subm1=GO&keyword=+--%3E+Keyword (solar eruptions)
http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?topic=Sun&subtopic=Atmosphere+%28corona%29&subm1=GO&keyword=+--%3E+Keyword (solar atmosphere)
Soho: http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/gallery/Movies/comets.html (Comets)
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/gallery/Movies/flares.html (FLARES & CMEs)
Some videos of the sun on YouTube
photos NASA/ESA and The satellite Solar and Heliospheric observatory an international project of ESA and NASA
In case there are other copyrights involved please tell me!
For nearly a
century, scientists have grappled with the enigma of
dark matter, which makes up 85% of the universe's matter.
Which means we see and know till today only a fraction of all matter in
the universe, only 15%. What means that Dark matter is the
true controlling
force that organizes large structures such as galaxies and
galactic clusters. Now in the year 2025
dark matter finally seems to be detected.
In contrast to today's solar theory, which offers no
explanation for any of the characteristic properties of the sun,
not for the sun's differential rotation, nor for the
extremely important solar
cycles (governs and has
influence on almost all solar
activities like uv intensity variations,
flares, coronal mass ejections, sun spots,
neutrino flux, etc etc), nor how an atomic
fusion reactor at the heart of the
sun can heat up the corona to 1
to 3 million Kelvin through a
rather cold solar surface that is just 5800 Kelvin hot, nor for the sun's
orbit (todays theory even
considers the sun's orbit to be non-existent, since todays
theory insists in Einstein's space-time-theory and for
Einstein
the sun's orbit was completely unknown and he therefore based
his theory on false
facts and many theories like the
ΛCDM model, which emerged from the theory of relativity, are now
being questioned as a whole:
"Results of this
analysis suggest that standard exponential F (R) models provide
much better fits than ΛCDM model".), this site
for nearly 25 years now has a
completely different explanation
in the web (and for more than 50 years in written form). Which then also explains
the
mysterious 'dark' matter, which is the
biggest
question of all for today's physics.
Even
Cern searches for Dark Matter. Because there are probably any number of 'dark stars' in
space
that are not orbited by planets (or by too small planets). Since these
dark stars do not emit the slightest (visible) light, they were absolutely
invisible to the largest optical telescopes for centuries. As predicted by this site, it was only the
James Webb Telescope (JWST) that discovered for the first time these dark
stars (JWST
was built to see for the first time space in infrared light):
"
this discovery would (...) provide direct
insights into the elusive properties of dark matter, which makes
up 85% of the universe’s matter yet remains largely undetectable.".
But even more important is the fact, that many of the new found stars by JWST should not actually be possible according to the solar fusion theory: "New research suggests that three of the earliest objects identified as galaxies by the JWST aren't galaxies at all, but rather "dark stars" — immense, ultrabright hypothetical objects that are powered by dark matter rather than nuclear fusion"
Dark matter was supposed to be weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) . Physics has searched everywhere for them. They’ve buried detectors in abandoned mines, lowered them beneath the Antarctic ice and even strapped them to the International Space Station. A lot of time, effort and money has been spent on the search for WIMPs, but so far, there isn’t a single WIMP to show for it. That’s despite dark matter supposedly being all around us all the time – a billion dark matter particles should be passing through your body each and every second. The fruitless search for WIMPs has led scientists to turn their attention elsewhere and interest is growing in the various alternatives, with axions being one of the most promising. (see this BBC sciencefocus article). And since there are many alternative particles, the futile - extremely expensive - search will continue.
Today physics has to admit: "Despite remarkable success of ΛCDM, we don’t understand the physics of dark matter, dark energy, or inflation.", but the whole ΛCDM-Model is refuted: "Results of this analysis suggest that standard exponential F (R) models provide much better fits than ΛCDM model".
What is the point of physics' insistence on solar fusion energy? There are various reasons, but the main one is probably that physics don't want to dry up the big money for fusion research. If you look at the facts, even well-meaning publications have to admit: "In fact, the much-publicized 2022 shot that yielded 3.15 MJ required roughly 300 MJ drawn from the wall to charge up NIF's laser system. In other words, the experiment consumed nearly 100 times more energy than it produced".
How today's physics sees the nuclear energy production in the sun (see: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/articles/fusion/index.html ) :
If you want to read more on nuclear fusion (articles to the real theoretical problems are not freely accessible in the net):
If you want to experience the actually changing view in science you should compare these two descriptions http://fusedweb.pppl.gov/CPEP/Chart_Pages/5.Plasmas/SunLayers.html (new view, so it seems it is only a matter of time...) and wikipedia\Nuclear fusion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.html(old view, the 2 pages are local copies of Sep 12, 2011 since wikipedia is ever changing) or this description: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/articles/fusion/index.html
http://www.jet.efda.org/fusion-basics/conditions-for-a-fusion-reaction/
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/basics/what-is-fusion.htm
Neutrino problem - despite contrary assertions it is not solved: http://www.tim-thompson.com/fusion.html and http://crio.mib.infn.it/wigmi/pages/cuore.php and http://arxiv.org/pdf/1104.1639
Nobel Laureate William A. Fowler (1988) ". . . we do not even understand how our own star really works."
Three remarkable records illustrate the extraordinary strength of the current solar cycle no. 25:
On July 18, 2024, the highest daily value of the last 20 years was measured at 290 sunspots
In August 2024, a record was set for the last two decades with an average monthly value of 215 sunspots
Around 50 solar storms were recorded on Earth in 2024, one of the highest numbers in recent years.
On https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/gallery/solar-cycle25/ you can watch videos to solar cycle 25 . Read new_facts.htm how this site explains the record breaking solar cycle 25.
Einstein wrong? Read : Why Einstein was wrong here.
(should any link on this page be non functional: please tell me. I'll upload local copies in this case.)