Oh, that's rich. It's *YOUR* theory, not mine, and you can't possibly meet that burden of proof from the standpoint of empirical physics in any lab on Earth. It's all "point at the sky and add invisible math bunnies".
Let's see:
1) Magic ionization state of neon? You made it up. Never seen in any lab.
2) A hot shell around a cold object that doesn't violate thermo? You made it up. Never seen in any lab.
3) Magic non-Newtonian gravity that "holds down" charged particles in a 6MV potential? You made it up. In real labs, electrostatic forces and gravity add up according to Newton's Laws.
4) A stack of plasma layers, none of which are actually at 6000K, that magically add up to 6000K blackbody radiation? Never seen. In real labs, radiation obeys the well-known radiation laws and no other.
You see, Michael, when physicists proposed the dark energy hypothesis, we checked whether it was
consistent with lab physics. It is. Adding dark energy to the equation does
NOT suddenly change the results of all of Newton's, Faraday's, Rutherford's, Draper's, Eotvos's, and Joule's experiments. We didn't make it up and then
assume it was right. We made it up---hypothesized it---and then tested it against everything we've ever measured. It's consistent with everything. The null hypothesis, "all of the laws of physics as usual EXCEPT dark energy=0" is consistent with
everything except precision cosmology data.
You, Michael, are making hypotheses which are
already known to be false. You invented a new ionization state for neon---but if you compare this hypothesis to
19th and 20th century thermodynamics experiments you find that it doesn't work. You invented the hypothesis "solar gravity prevent a high-voltage ions from accelerating outwards", but if you compare this hypothesis to
Coulomb's and Cavendish's experiments you find that they contradict. You invented a new hypothesis "the sum of the spectra of 2000K iron and 2,000,000K neon is the same as a 6000K blackbody", but this hypothesis is
already known to be false.
Practically everything you say about the Sun, Michael, is a new and crazy hypothesis that
directly contradicts lab experiments. That's much, much worse than proposing a hypothesis (like "MOND is the correct theory of gravity") that contradicts cosmology; and it's much, much, much, much worse than proposing a hypothesis (like "dark energy exists") whose only failing is that it's very difficult to test.
Seriously, Michael---if you want to respect lab experiments, start with the experiments that established the blackbody. Then take a look at the experiments that established Maxwell's Equations. Then try, I dunno, Newton's Force Laws. Your sun hypothesis is calling all of
those experiments wrong in one way or another.
Birkeland apparently considered three kinds of stuff was being spewed from the Sun. They were colloidal corpuscles, collections of molecules, and separate atoms. These things were thrown into space, some never to return, others returned to the Sun by gravity, and the fewest of them coalesced to form new planets. What a moron that Birkeland was, don't you think? Oh, and I got that from your own source. If you'd actually read the material you wave around you'd be able to avoid those ridiculously foolish arguments of yours. 