Brant, you suggest that the main evidence for a hollow, solid iron, aether converter Sun model are:

1. "Mysterious Iron Factories in the Early Universe";
2. Myths;
3. TRACE(?) running difference images;
4. Coronal loops;
5. Magnetostrictive properties;
6. Mass fractionation data [from] Oliver Manuel's Iron Sun page at http://www.thesunisiron.com/;
7. The right dimensions to receive the 160 minute (?) cycle wave length of a hollow sphere;
8. The solar moss is just a part of the solid surface below the photosphere that is at a different potential and is therefore glowing, instead of extending into the chromosphere;
9. The depth of the surface is based on opacity and the location of White Light flares.

Questions

Hollow Sun: I recently mentioned evidence for the hollow Sun here in the Science Discussion section. Did you see that?

Sunspots: How do you explain differential rotation of the Sun, as shown by sunspot motions?

Solar Moss: If the solar moss were below the photosphere, how would it be visible through the photospheric granules and supergranules?

Coronal Loops: If the coronal loops are electric discharges from the iron surface, why would there be arcs above the solid iron body? How could there be an electrical potential difference from one location on the sphere to another? Would there be analogy to cathode spots? If so, what exactly is the analogy?

Myths: The ancient myths don't talk about the Sun. They talk about Saturn. So how can you use them as evidence for the Sun?

Iron Factories: Are the iron factories said to be supernovae? Aren't supernovae too rare to produce so many iron stars? Aren't they also based on poor models, such as perfectly symmetrical explosions and implosions etc? Here's a quote from the Iron Factories paper:

 

The new observations presented here paint an extreme picture of the center of the quasar APM 8279+5255: there must have been a whole "fireworks" of supernovae at the quasar's center to produce the large amount of iron observed. In addition, in order to explain the high luminosity of APM 8279+5255 and the huge outflow of matter from its center many solar masses of stardust have to be swallowed, and partly blown out again, every year (figure 1).

So on top of the questionable supernovae assumptions they seem to have even more questionalbe assumptions about quasars, namely that they're extremely distant and luminous, when the quasar in front of a galaxy proves that their redshift does not indicate their distance and therefore they are not so luminous. So what is the significance of the quasar data? Does iron abundance in quasars disprove Charles' natural tokamak theory of quasars?