This is irrelevant, since we know from direct observation that stellar fusion models are baseless and unpredictive, to say nothing of unfalsifiable and unverifiable. We can verify or falsify electrical models in the lab...strangely.
It's not irrelevant. It's very relevant, because it is in fact one of the ways the model could be falsified. If the total energy budget doesn't work, the model is false. So the fact that the energy budget does work is quite relevant. And it's not an unpredictive model. It predicts a neutrino generation rate, for example. Again, that's a way the model could be falsified. If the sun didn't generate neutrinos, then that would falsify the model. But again, it does.
Further, the derived mass of the sun is based on "gravity" models, which have been shown not to apply to charged bodies in plasma. Under such circumstances electromagnetic forces dominate, "gravity" vanishes to insignificance.
That's a novel argument. The earth orbits the sun because of electromagnetic effects, not gravity.
I wonder what you think the charge on the earth is, and what the fields it experiences are. Let's try to figure out if those plasma effects really dominate the dynamics of our orbit.
The conclusion to draw is that the derived mass of the sun is wrong, as are the derived masses of most if not all of the planets.
So if I take a solid, neutral object, measure its mass, and then measure the attraction it has towards the earth, what I'm measuring is not gravity, but... plasma effects.
Yeah,
real convincing there.
Plus, of course, the earth's mass doesn't really matter for determining its orbit around the sun.
This failure of "gravity" models doesn't just apply to our solar system, though. It's been known for quite some time that "gravity" models don't accurately describe the behavior of galaxies (angular momentum and so on). Why is that? Galaxies are also dominated by electromagnetic forces. Stellar fusionists don't understand the electrical nature of the universe, all they have in their toolbox of explanations is "gravity", so they had to invent "black hole" in the center of every galaxy, then "dark matter" to patch the holes blown in the model by "black hole", then "dark energy" to patch the holes blown in "big bang", on and on like that. It's pathological, not science.
Black holes weren't invented to explain the mass at the center of galaxies. They're an unavoidable consequence of general relativity, which wasn't derived to explain galactic dynamics. So you have your history quite mistaken. But no matter. You don't believe in black holes, you don't believe in dark matter, you don't believe in dark energy, and you don't believe in general relativity. Instead, you want to replace it all with what you call plasma physics.
Too bad this plasma physics
can't explain galactic rotation curves either.
The most damning thing "wrong with" the sun powering itself internally is that we observe a temperature minimum in the sun's corona, inconsistent with the stellar fusion model, unless the laws of thermodynamics are wrong.
This point has been addressed many times before. I'll try a slightly different approach this time. First, what's the radiant power output of the photosphere, and what's the radiant power output of the corona? Once we have these numbers, we can start examining them to try to make sense of them.
Why not induction?)
