Printer Friendly

Forty lines of evidence for condensed matter--the sun on trial: liquid metallic hydrogen as a solar building block.

4.5 Surface Imaging #21

With the advent of the 1-m Swedish Solar Telescope (SST), the solar surface has been imaged with unprecedented resolution [100,291]. ([dagger]) This resolution will increase dramatically in a few years when the construction of the Advanced Technology Solar Telescope is completed in Hawaii [104].

Using the SST, scientists report, "In these pictures we see the Sun's surface at a low, slanting angle, affording a three-dimensional look at solar hills, valleys, and canyons " [291] ... "A notable feature in our best images of sunspots is that many penumbral filaments, which are isolated from the bulk of the penumbra and surrounded by dark umbra, show dark cores" ... "Inspection of our images shows numerous varieties of other very thin dark lines in magnetic regions " ... "'hairs' that are seemingly emanating from pores into the closest neighbouring granules, 'canals' in the granulation near spots and pores, and running dark streaks crossing penumbral filaments diagonally" [100].

Since antiquity, solar observers have been fascinated with structure on the surface of the Sun. Now, as telescopic resolution continues to increase, they are documenting, almost in 3D, the existence of structure on the solar surface with increased certainty. They resort to words like hills', valleys', and canyons' to describe the surface of the Sun and they focus increasingly on substructures, like the dark cores of the penumbra. How can this structural detail be compatible with gases? Structure remains a property of condensed matter and gases can support none. Moreover, if the solar surface is but an illusion', what point can there be in documenting the nature of these structures? But the problem is even more vexing for the gaseous models, as films are currently being taken of the Sun in high resolution (see Supplementary Materials for [100] on the Nature website), and our 'illusions' are behaving as condensed matter (see [section]5.1) [292, 293].

Father Secchi, perhaps the most able solar observer of the 19th century, drew with painstaking attention numerous details on the solar surface which he viewed as real [1]. He emphasized that "there is thus no illusion to worry about, the phenomena that we have just exposed to the reader are not simple optical findings, but objects which really exist, faithfully represented to our eyes using instruments employed to observe them" [1, p. 35-36, V. II]. The authors of the wonderful SST Nature paper [100] seem to discard illusions, "We are, however, confident that the dark cores shown here are real" [100]. Nonetheless, they maintain the language associated with the gaseous models, "A dark-cored filament could be produced by an optically thin cylindrical tube with hot walls--perhaps a magnetic flux tube heated on the surface by the dissipation of electrical currents" [100].

Commenting on [100] in light of accepted theory, John H. Thomas states, "Computer simulations of photospheric magnetoconvection show very small structures, but the simulations have not yet achieved sufficient resolution to determine the limiting size. The horizontal mean free path--in other words, the average distance traveled without interacting --of a photon in the solar photosphere is about 50 km, and so this might be expected to be the smallest observable length scale, because of the smoothing effect of radiative energy transfer. But sophisticated radiative-transfer calculations show that fine structures as small as a few kilometers should in principle be directly observable" [294].

The problem for the gas models rests in their prediction that the photosphere has a density (~[10.sup.-7] g/[cm.sup.3] [148]) which is 10,000 times lower than that of the Earth's atmosphere at sea level--surpassing some of the best vacuums on Earth. Structure cannot be claimed to exist in a vacuum and has never been demonstrated to be associated with the equations of radiation transfer (see [292,294] and references therein). It is inherently a property of condensed matter, without any need for internal photons. As a result, modeling associated with the analysis of structural entities on the solar surface, which is fundamentally based on ideas of a gaseous Sun [292, 294], are unlikely to be of any lasting value with respect to understanding the complexities of the photosphere. The most elegant solution rests in accepting that these structures are real and comprised of condensed matter.

4.6 Coronal Holes/Rotation #22

Coronal holes (see Fig. 18) are believed to be regions of low-density plasma that open freely into interplanetary space [52, 295,296]. * They are associated with the presence of fast solar winds (see [section]5.8).

When the Sun becomes active, coronal holes can appear anywhere on the solar surface [52, 295, 296]. In contrast, when it is quiet, coronal holes are viewed as 'anchored' onto the polar regions of the solar surface [297, p. 10]. This 'anchoring' constitutes a powerful sign that the Sun is comprised of condensed matter, as this behavior directly implies both long-term structure within the corona and the existence of a true solar surface. 'Anchoring' requires two distinct regions in the Sun which cooperate with each other to produce structural restriction.

The corona possesses "... a radially rigid rotation of 27.5 days synodic period from 2.5 [R.sub.[??]] to >15 [R.sub.[??]]" [277, p.116] as established by the LASCO instrument aboard the SOHO satellite [298]. Rigid rotation of the entire corona strongly suggests that the solar body and the corona possess condensed matter.

Coronal material ([dagger]) contains magnetic fields lines which, in turn, are anchored at the level of the photosphere [62]. Anchoring', once again, requires structure both within the solar body and within the solar atmosphere. The condensed nature of the corona and coronal structures has already been discussed in [section]2.3.7, [section]2.3.8, and [section]3.8. It will be treated once again in [section]5.5, and [section]6.6. The relevant structure of the solar interior will be discussed in [section]5.1. The presence of 'anchoring' within coronal holes and the rigid rotation of the corona is best explained by condensed matter.

4.7 Chromospheric Extent #23

Eddington recognized the great spatial extent of the chromosphere and pondered on how this material was supported [9, p. 362]. ([double dagger]) At the time, he knew that chromospheric emission lines (see [section]3.4, [section]3.5, and [section]3.6) could extend up to 14,000 km [9, p. 362]. For Eddington, the answer to chromosphere chromospheric extent rested upon radiation pressure, but the solution would prove insufficient [62].

Bhatnagar and Livingston provide a lucid presentation of the chromospheric scale height problem within the context of the gaseous models [277, p. 140-145]. They recall how initial 'hydrostatic equilibrium' arguments could only account for a density scale height of 150 km [277, p. 141]. In order to further increase this scale height to the levels observed, it was hypothesized that the chromosphere had to be heated, either through turbulent motion, wave motion, magnetic fields, or 5-minute oscillations [277, p. 140-145]. The entire exercise demonstrated that the spatial extent of the chromosphere represented a significant problem for the gaseous models. The great solar physicist Harold Zirin has placed these difficulties in perspective, "Years ago the journals were filled with discussions of 'the height of the chromosphere'. It was clear that the apparent scale height of 1000 km far exceeded that in hydrostatic equilibrium. In modern times, a convenient solution has been found--denial. Although anyone can measure its height with a ruler and find it extending to 5000 km, most publications state that it becomes the corona at 2000km above the surface. We cannot explain the great height or the erroneous models ... While models say 2000 km, the data say 5000" [193].

Obviously, a gas cannot support itself [62]. Hence, the spatial extent of the chromosphere constitutes one of the most elegant observations relative to the existence of a condensed solar photosphere. Within the context of the LMH model [35, 39], the Sun possesses a condensed surface. This surface provides a mechanism to support the chromosphere: gas pressure (see Fig. 17)--the same phenomenon responsible for the support of the Earth's atmosphere [48].

It was demonstrated in [section]4.1, that electron gas pressure cannot prevent a gaseous star from collapsing onto itself, being that these objects lack real surfaces. However, a liquid metallic hydrogen Sun has a real surface, at the level of the photosphere. When a gaseous atom within the solar atmosphere begins to move towards the Sun, it will eventually strike the surface. Here, it will experience a change in direction, reversing its downward vertical component and thereby placing upward pressure on the solar atmosphere, as displayed in Fig. 17. Gas pressure can simply account for the spatial extend of the chromosphere in condensed solar models [35,39]. Moreover, under this scenario, the chromosphere might be supported by the escape of gaseous atoms from the solar interior as manifested in solar activity (see [section]5.1). This provides an acceptable mechanism in the condensed models, as they do not need to maintain the hydrostatic equilibrium essential to the gaseous Sun. In any event, chromospheric heating, from turbulent motion, wave motion, magnetic fields, or 5-minute oscillations [277], is not required to support the great spatial extent of the chromosphere in the LMH model.

4.8 Chromospheric Shape #24

Secchi had observed that the diameter of the observable Sun varied with filter selection (blue or red) during a solar eclipse [1, p. 320, V.I]. Currently, it is well established that the dimensions of the chromosphere are perceived as vastly different, whether it is studied in H[alpha], or using the HeII line at 30.4 nm [243, Fig. 1]. The chromosphere also appears to be prolate [243]. This prolateness has been estimated as [DELTA]D/D = 5.5 x [10.sup.-3] in HeII and 1.2 x [10.sup.-3] in H[alpha]--more extended in polar regions than near the equator [243]. The shape of this layer has been demonstrated to be extremely stable, with no significant variation over a two year period [243]. *

The prolate nature of the chromosphere and the extended structure which the Sun manifests above the polar axis cannot be easily explained by the gaseous models. A gaseous Sun should be a uniform object existing under equilibrium conditions, with no means of generating preferential growth in one dimension versus another. When the Sun is quiet, the greater extent of the chromosphere above the poles is associated with the presence of large anchored coronal holes in this region [section](4.6). Coronal holes, in turn, manifest the presence of fast solar winds (see [section]5.8). A link to the fast solar winds is made in the gaseous Sun [243], despite the recognition that the origins of these winds ([section]5.8), and of the coronal holes with which they are associated ([section]4.6), remains an area of concern within these models [48, 52].

Even the oblate nature of the solar body had provided complications for the gaseous Sun ([section]4.4). This oblateness could be explained solely on internal cohesive forces and rotational motion in the LMH model ([section]4.4). But, the prolate nature of the chromosphere reflects something more complex.

According to the LMH model, fast solar winds ([section]5.8) are produced when intercalate atoms (see [section]5.1 Fig. 19) are actively being expelled from the lattice of the solar body [48, 52]. During this processes, some hydrogen is ejected, but unlike the other elements, it is often recaptured to help maintain the solar mass. In this respect, the solar chromosphere has been advanced as a site of hydrogen recondensation in the solar atmosphere (see [section]5.4, [section]5.6 and [59,61]). It appears prolate because, at the poles, more hydrogen is being expelled. Thus, more is recaptured over a greater spatial area. In analogous fashion, the corona has been designated as a site of electron recapture within the Sun [60]. With increasing distance from the solar surface, coronal atoms are increasingly stripped of their electrons. This is an electron affinity problem, wherein metallic hydrogen in the solar atmosphere scavenges for electrons and strips them from adjacent atoms [60]. Therefore, the chromosphere [59] and corona [60] act in concert to recapture protons and electrons, bringing them back onto the solar surface.

In [section]3.4, it was proposed [59] that the H[alpha] emission is the direct result of the recondensation of atomic hydrogen, delivered by molecular hydrogen, onto larger condensed hydrogen structures, CHS, within the chromosphere. HeII emission results from the recondensation of atomic hydrogen, delivered by the helium hydride molecular cation [61], onto these structures (see [section]3.6).

In the lower chromosphere, neutral molecular hydrogen exists and can deliver atomic hydrogen with ease, resulting in H[alpha] emission. However, with increasing height, it becomes more scarce, as the corona captures electrons. Once deprived of its sole electron, hydrogen cannot emit.

In contrast, with increased elevation, the helium hydride cation can become more abundant, as atomic helium can now harvest lone protons. Of course, neutral helium hydride in the ground state is not stable [256, 257]. Helium must first capture a lone proton (or first lose an electron to become [He.sup.+] and capture neutral hydrogen) to form the stable molecule. This readily occurs with increased height. Thus, HeII emissions are seen at the greatest chromospheric elevations. Since the helium hydride cation produced at these elevations can migrate towards the solar surface, one is able to observed HeII lines all the way down to the level of the photosphere.

Such an elegant account, exploiting chemical principles to understand line emission, cannot be framed by the gaseous models relative to the prolate nature for the chromosphere. This includes the possible causes for the differential spatial extent of H[alpha] versus HeII lines (see Fig. 1 in [243]).

5 Dynamic Lines of Evidence

The dynamic lines of evidence involve time or orientation related changes in solar structure, emission, flow, or magnetic field. Along with many of the structural ([section]) and helioseismic ([section]) lines of evidence, they are amongst the simplest to visualize.

5. 1 Surface Activity #25

The surface of the Sun is characterized by extensive activity. ([dagger]) The solar surface is often viewed as boiling', or as a boiling gas'. But, gases and a gaseous Sun are unable to 'boil'. Gases are the result of such actions. Only liquids can boil, while solids sublime. *

Since gases cannot boil, in order to explain activity on the solar surface, the gaseous models must have recourse to magnetic fields and flux tubes. In the case of sunspots ([section]2.3.3 [4,40,45]), faculae ([section]2.3.5 [45]), and magnetic bright points ([section]2.3.5), these fields are located within the solar body. In the case of the chromosphere ([section]5.6), flares ([section]2.3.8), and coronal mass ejections ([section]2.3.8), they arise from the corona. The arguments are fallacious, as magnetic fields themselves depend on structure for formation. Unable to account for their own existence (see [section]5.3), they cannot be responsible for creating such features within a gaseous medium.

The only prominent active features of the Sun, whose formation appears not to be inherently tied to magnetic fields, are granules ([section]2.3.4 [40, 45]). These are thought to be generated by subsurface heat which is being transported to the upper visible layers [40,118-122]. A change in 'gas density' is required within the photospheric vacuum.

In actuality, those who model granules in the laboratory (see [40] for a detailed review) understand that they are best represented as the products of Benard convection [314-318], a process dominated by surface tension, not buoyancy [118, p. 116]. The gaseous models, unable to provide for a real surface on the Sun, must reject Benard convection. The problem is further complicated with the realization that granules obey the 2D laws of structure (see [section]2.3.4) and that explosive phenomena, associated with dark dot' formation, can be explained solely on the basis of structural considerations [126] (see [section]2.3.4). To add to the suspension of disbelief, proponents of the gaseous models maintain that the photosphere exists at the density of an ultra-low pressure vacuum (~[10.sup.-7] g/[cm.sup.3] [148]). With respect to surface activity, all efforts by the gaseous models to understand the observed phenomena can be seen to collapse, when faced with the simple challenge that their solar surface is only an illusion' [4]. Scientists are confronted with the intellectual denial of objective reality.

The LMH model [35, 36] can account for solar activity, since it allows for structure and takes advantage of the consequences. Granular convection can be explained with ease, as a LMH Sun possesses a true surface and the associated tension required for Benard convection [314-318].

The emissive behavior of the Sun (see [section]2.3) strongly argues that the photosphere is comprised of a layered structure much like that found in graphite (see Fig. 2) and first proposed in metallic hydrogen [39] by Wigner and Huntington [88]. Layered materials like graphite are known to form intercalation compounds [48, 79-83] when mixed with other elements (see Fig. 19). In the case of metallic hydrogen, this implies that the non-hydrogen elements occupy interlayer lattice points [48], while the hexagonal hydrogen framework remains intact. It is the science of intercalation compounds which is most closely linked to the understanding of solar activity [48].

Within graphite, the diffusion of elements across hexagonal planes is hindered (see [48] for references), while diffusion within an intercalate layer is facilitated. The same principles are being invoked within the layered metallic hydrogen layers thought to exist in the Sun. Graphite intercalation compounds [79-83] are known to undergo exfoliation, an often violent process (see [79, p. 9] and [83, p. 406], where sudden phase transitions in the intercalation region from condensed to gaseous results in the expulsion of the intercalate atoms. In the laboratory, exfoliation can be associated with a tremendous expansion of lattice dimensions, as the gaseous expansion of the intercalate layers acts to greatly increase the separation between groups of hexagonal planes [79-83].

It is the process of exfoliation which can guide our understanding of solar activity. Exfoliation can be seen to result in the active degassing of the intercalation regions existing within the Sun. When the Sun is quiet, it is degassing primarily at the poles. This results in the fast solar winds (see [section]5.8) and coronal holes (see [section]4.6 [52]) in this region. It leads to the conclusion that the hydrogen hexagonal planes in the polar convection zones ([dagger]) tend to be arranged in a direction which is orthogonal to the solar surface.

However, in the equatorial convection zones, the hexagonal hydrogen planes are hypothesized to be oriented parallel to the solar surface. Under the circumstances, atoms in the intercalation regions cannot freely diffuse into the solar atmosphere. They remain essentially trapped within the Sun, as reflected by the presence of slow solar winds above the equator. Over half the course of the eleven year solar cycle, intercalate elements slowly increase in number until, finally, the Sun becomes active (see Fig. 15) and exfoliative processes begin. The intercalate atoms begin to break and displace the hexagonal hydrogen planes, as they work their way beyond the confines of the photosphere. Coronal holes become visible at random locations throughout the Sun, indicating the reorientation of hydrogen planes in the interior. With time, the Sun degasses its equatorial region and returns to the quiet state.

In this regard, the series of images displayed in Fig. 15 are particularly telling, as they illustrate that helium levels in the lower solar atmosphere increase significantly with solar activity (examine carefully the periphery of the central image obtained in 2001 compared with images obtained in 1996 or 2005). * The Sun appears to be degassing helium, as previously concluded [48]. This further strengthens the argument that it does not, as popularly believed, possess large amounts of helium in its interior (see [47] for a detailed discussion). Rather, careful observation of the solar cycle reveals that the Sun must be comprised primarily of hydrogen, as it constantly expels other elements from its interior. The notable exception, as was seen is [section]3.3, relates to lithium [54]. ([dagger]) Relative to solar activity, the liquid metallic Sun allows for the buildup of true pressure in its interior, as intercalate elements enter the gas phase. This could account for changes in solar dimension ([section]4.3) and shape ([section]4.4, [section]6.3) across the cycle. It also explains the production of solar flares in accordance with ideas coined long ago by Zollner [3, 189]. In a robust physical setting, mechanical pressure is all that is required, not energy from the corona. The same can be said of prominences, whose layered appearance (Fig. 20) highly suggests that they are the product of exfoliative forces within the Sun. Prominences reflect the separation of entire sheets of material from the Sun, exactly as found to occur when exfoliative forces act within graphite [48].

5.2 Orthogonal Flows #26

The orthogonal nature of material flow in the photosphere and corona (see Fig. 21) provides one of the simplest and most elegant lines of evidence that the Sun is comprised of condensed matter. * In 1863, Carrington established the differential rotation of the photosphere [67, 68]. His studies revealed that solar matter, at the level of the photosphere, experiences a net displacement in a direction parallel to the solar surface. Yet, solar winds ([section]5.8) are moving radially away from the Sun. This orthogonal flow of matter at the interface of the photosphere and the atmosphere just above it demands the presence of a physical boundary. Such a surface is unavailable in the gaseous models, but self-evident in a liquid metallic hydrogen setting.

5.3 Solar Dynamo #27

As first noted by George Ellery Hale [107], the Sun possesses strong magnetic fields which can undergo complex windings and protrusions [12]. ([dagger]) Magnetic fields are ubiquitous on the solar surface and within the corona. They are not manifested solely in sunspots ([section]2.3.3). As seen in [section]2.3.5, strong fields can be observed in faculae and magnetic bright points, while weak fields are present above the granules ([section]2.3.4) and in coronal structures ([section] 2.3.8).

Within the context of the gaseous models, solar magnetic fields are believed to be produced by the action of a powerful solar dynamo [319,320] generated at the base of the convection zone near the tachocline layer, well beneath the solar photosphere [12]. A dynamo represents a self-sustained amplification of magnetic fields, produced in conjunction with flow in conducting fluids. In the laboratory, they are studied using liquid metals, typically molten sodium [321-324].

Dynamo behavior must always involve the flow of conductive fluids across magnetic fields. This, in turn, "induces electrical currents, which, under appropriate flow and magnetic field configurations, can sustain the field against dissipation" [319].

Perhaps the greatest driving force for understanding the behavior of dynamos in the laboratory has been the presence of planetary and stellar magnetic fields [319-324]. It is not reasonable to apply these studies to a gaseous Sun.

All dynamo laboratories rely on the use of molten sodium. This substance acts as an incompressible conductive liquid metal [321-324]. ([double dagger]) To generate dynamo effects under experimental conditions, flow is typically induced into the metal using mechanical devices like pumps or turbines [321-324]. External induction coils are present which can provide initial magnetic fields to help either "seed" or "drive" the studies [321-324].

It is important to note that macroscopic structure is being imposed in these systems. In every case, the flow of liquid metallic sodium is being confined and directed by structure (tubes, vats, canisters) [321-324]. Insulating materials are always present, whether provided by the presence of pressurizing argon at 80 p.s.i. in a vat [321, 322] or by the inability of molten sodium to direct its own flow when propelled through pipes [323, 324]. Experimental geometries are carefully selected (see e.g. [323, Fig. 1]), including the location of induction coils [321,322]. Mechanical devices are providing energy to drive these systems and external static magnetic fields supplement the sampling. ([section])

In this respect, Lowe and Wilkinson constructed the first working model of a geomagnetic dynamo [328]. It was composed of solid iron alloy cylinders, rotating within a casting of the same material, wherein a small amount of mercury maintained the required electrical contact [328]. In relaying this design, Lowe and Wilkinson insisted that, "Self-exciting dynamos are very common on the surface of the Earth, but these rely on the insulation between wires to direct the induced currents into an appropriate path; they are multiply connected" [328].

These conditions are unlike those in gaseous stars which, by their very nature, are devoid of structure, have no ability to "direct the induced currents into an appropriate path" [328], and are incapable of acting as insulators. The situation has been summarized as follows, "Whereas technical dynamos consist of a number of well-separated electrically conducting parts, a cosmic dynamo operates, without any ferromagnetism, in a nearly homogeneous medium" [324]. With these words, astrophysical dynamos fell outside the realm of experimental science, precisely because they are thought to exist in objects, like gaseous stars, unable to impart a physical architecture.

Astrophysics cannot hope that magnetic fields impart 'illusionary' details and emissive properties to photospheric objects (e.g. sunspots and faculae), while at the same time requiring that real structure exists in a gaseous Sun. This structure must somehow enable the formation of powerful magnetic fields and the buildup of a solar dynamo. The fact remains that the generation of strong magnetic fields on Earth always requires the action of condensed matter. As they have no structure, gases are unable to generate magnetic fields on a macroscopic level. They are simply subject to their action. It is improper to confer upon gases behavior which cannot even be approached in the laboratory.

It is hard to envision that hydrogen in non-metallic form, as is currently hypothesized to exist in the gaseous stars, will be able to match the conductivity observed in a real metal (see Fig. 2 in [329]). Gases obviously cannot possess conduction bands and, therefore, lack the central element required to generate powerful magnetic fields on Earth. At the melting point, liquid sodium has a conductivity (~[10.sup.7] [[OMEGA].sup.-1] [m.sup.-1] [321-324]) which very much approaches that observed in the solid [321-324]. Near this point and in the solid state, conduction bands are responsible for the conductivity measured in sodium. * Hence, it should not be surprising that, just as the metal melts, some quantum mechanical conditions involved in forming these conduction bands remains (i.e. there remains some interatomic order). Otherwise, a substantial change in conductivity would be evident.

With all these factors in mind, it is reasonable to suggest that the structural lattice present in liquid metallic hydrogen provides a superior setting to account for dynamo action in the Sun. Metallic hydrogen should be able to support real structure. Protons would occupy the hexagonal planes (see Fig. 2) and electrons flow in the conduction bands necessary to generate magnetic fields. A LMH Sun should display a density, throughout its interior, similar to molten sodium. Conductive paths could be set up in the hexagonal hydrogen (i.e. proton) planes which can benefit from the insulating action of intercalate elements (see Fig. 19). As a direct consequence, changes in the dynamo and in the magnetic field intensity, in association with the solar cycle, can be accounted for as a by product of exfoliative forces (see [section]5.8). When the intercalate elements are expelled from the Sun, conductive shorts are created between hexagonal hydrogen planes which were once insulated from one another. This provides a mechanism to both build and destroy the solar dynamo. Furthermore, by turning to this substance as a solar building block, laboratory dynamo experiments become linked to a substance which may come to have great importance on Earth [92, 98], not only in the distant stars.

5.4 Coronal Rain #28

Innocuous findings can lead to the greatest discoveries. ([dagger]) In this respect, coronal rain [330-333] will not present an exception. This subtle effect consists of "cool and dense matter " which is "ubiquitous" within the solar atmosphere and which is constantly falling towards the solar surface [330-333]. It is said to be composed of a "a myriad of small blobs, with sizes that are, on average 300 km in width and 700 km in length" [333]. When these aggregate, they produce showers [333]. Coronal rain has been associated with coronal loops and attempts have been made to link its existence to loop substructure [334].

As coronal rain falls towards the surface, its rate of descent does not match that expected from gravity considerations alone [333]. From the standpoint of the gaseous solar models, it appears that coronal rains and showers are retarded by the effects of gas pressure in the solar atmosphere [333]. These models rely on cycles of heating and condensation to explain coronal rain [332, 333]. But these arguments are not consistent with the belief that the lower chromosphere has a density of only ~[10.sup.-12] g/[cm.sup.3] [115, p. 32] and that gas pressure cannot exist ([section]4.1) in these models. How can condensation take place within a hot corona (see [section]3.7) while maintaining a gaseous state, which even at photospheric densities, would only be ~[10.sup.-7] g/[cm.sup.3] [148]? How can a vacuum retard the rate of descent of these particles? With respect to the existence of coronal rain, the gaseous models of the Sun simply lack the necessary flexibility to provide a reasonable account of this phenomenon.

Alternatively, the LMH model [35,39], has advanced that condensed matter populates the outer solar atmosphere (see [section]2.3.6, [section]2.3.7, [section]2.3.8, [section]3.4, [section]3.5, [section]3.6, [section]3.8, [section]4.6, [section]4.7, [section]4.8, [section]5.5, [section]5.6, [section]5.7, and [section]6.6). Cool/dense coronal and chromospheric layers consequently stand as pillars of this model [56-60]. In this regard, the presence of coronal rain can be more readily explained if one permits true condensation to occur within the solar atmosphere.

As highlighted in [section]2.3.7 and [section]2.3.8, the K-corona should be viewed as a region containing diffuse metallic hydrogen [57, 60]. However, given the lack of pressure which exists in the K-corona, this metallic hydrogen cannot regenerate itself. Rather, coronal metallic hydrogen has entered the solar atmosphere after being expelled from the solar body during active periods (see [section]2.3.8, [section]5.5, [section]6.6 and [57,58,60]).

Though coronal LMH would be unable to self-regenerate, it should be able to provide a surface upon which other materials could condense. This appears to be what is happening with coronal rain.

In this regard, it is important to note that coronal rain is usually visualized in H[alpha] and CaII [334]. These emission lines are chromospheric in nature (see [section]3.4 and [section]3.5). Their use in detecting coronal rain strongly suggests that this material, unlike the coronal loops ([section]5.5) with which it is often associated [334], is actually condensing chromospheric material. *

Thus, much like water vapor on Earth condenses in the morning on the grass, hydrogen, in non-metallic form, appears to generate a dense condensate onto the coronal metallic hydrogen framework. This could explain why coronal rain can been seen flowing down coronal loops [334]. As the two substances are distinct, the hydrogen condensate slowly drifts back down to rejoin the solar surface. Since coronal rain remains attracted to the metallic hydrogen surfaces of the corona, it is unable to simply respond to the forces of gravity and its descent appears to be retarded.

Consequently, the analysis of coronal rain and its behavior appears to provide wonderful examples of the interplay between structure and function within the solar atmosphere. It strongly suggests that two distinct forms of condensed hydrogen are present in this region: 1) dense molecular hydrogen in the chromosphere [92] and 2) metallic hydrogen in the corona. Coronal rain is assisting in the harvest of hydrogen atoms from the corona. In unison, the metallic hydrogen framework, upon which it is condensing, acts to scavenge electrons from non-hydrogen atoms [56-60], which it could channel either to the solar body, or directly to coronal rain. In this manner, the corona functions to help preserve both the mass and charge balance of the Sun.

5.5 Coronal Loops #29

Coronal loops can be readily observed, both in the continuum [178-180] (see [section]2.3.8) and using distinct atomic emission lines (see [section]3.5 and [section]3.6), as shown in see Fig. 22. They represent "inhomogeneous structures", which appear to be attached to the solar surface and which can extend well into the outer atmosphere [335, p. 83-84]. They can be relatively small (1 Mm in length and 200 km thick) or have great physical extent (several million meters to "a substantial fraction of the solar radius" with diameters of 1.5 Mm) [336]. While loops do not seem to possess substructure at the resolutions currently available [336], they may display such features on scales of about 15 km [336], a value well beyond current resolutions. Based on the analysis of coronal rain, it has been suggested that coronal loops have substructures smaller than 300km [334].

As discussed in [section]5.4, coronal loops are associated with the presence of coronal rain. In this regard, the former may well represent a metallic hydrogen framework within the solar atmosphere unto which chromospheric matter, like coronal rain, can condense. This would appear to be confirmed in Fig. 22, as both chromospheric lines (see [section]3.4, [section]3.5, [section]3.6) and coronal lines (see [section]3.8) can be detected within coronal loops.

Coronal loops hold an interesting line of evidence for condensed matter. It has been observed that "the hydrostatic scale height ... has always the same verticalextent, regardless ofhow much the loop is inclined, similar to the water level in communicating water tubes with different slopes" [335, p. 84] (see Fig. 23).

The vertical height to which some coronal loops appear filled with matter does not change depending on inclination. The loop is containing matter which behaves as a liquid. Conversely, if the loop was merely plasma, the effects of vertical extent on loop appearance would be difficult to justify.

In this regard, it may well be that the manner in which coronal loops appear to fill' with height might represent a build up of condensed hydrogen onto these structures. As the loops assume an increasingly vertical position, material of a chromospheric nature should slowly settle towards the base of these structures, as it makes its descent down to re-enter the solar interior (see [section]3.4, [section]3.5, [section]3.6). Gaseous solar models are unable to rival this explanation.

5.6 Chromospheric Condensation #30

As discussed briefly in [section]3.4, the chromosphere is filled with spicules [337] which seem to extend as disoriented hair beyond the surface of the Sun. * As demonstrated in Fig. 24, spicules can be observed in H[alpha]. They can also be seen in other chromospheric emission lines, including those from calcium and helium (see [section]3.5, [section]3.6 and [150, p. 8]).

The gaseous models of the Sun have no simple means to account for the formation of these structures. ([dagger]) Proponents of these models have expressed that two classes of spicules exist. Type II spicules are short-lived (10-150s), thin (<200km), and said to fade [338]. Type I spicules have a 3-7 minute lifetime and move up and down [338]. It has been stated that Type II spicules might be responsible for heating the corona [338], but this claim, along with the very existence of Type II spicules, has been challenged [339]. Nonetheless, despite the densities brought forth, spicules are still believed to be propelling matter into the corona.

Counter to these ideas, the metallic hydrogen model holds that spicules are the product of condensation reactions (see [section]3.4, [section]3.5, [section]3.6 and [59,61]). They enable hydrogen atoms, gathered in the solar atmosphere, to rejoin the solar body. The greatest clues for such a scenario come from the analysis of spicular velocities which appear to be essentially independent of gravitational forces [209-215]. ([double dagger])

Spicules seem to move up with nearly uniform speeds [206, p. 61]. These speeds can actually increase with elevation [150, p. 45-60]. Spicules can rise in jerky fashion or stop quite suddenly [150, p. 45-60]. They can "expand laterally or split into two or more strands after being ejected" [337].

All of this behavior, and the ability to document it, suggests that spicules are not devoid of density against an even sparser background. Rather, they seem to be the product of condensation. It is almost as if much of the material in the chromosphere exists in a state of critical opalescence, that strange state wherein matter is not quite liquid and not fully gaseous [35]. ([section]) Just a slight disturbance can cause the entire substance to rapidly condense. Such a process would be essentially independent of direction (vertical or horizontal), but would be guided by local fluctuations in material concentrations. This would explain the erratic behavior and orientation of spicules.

The formation of spicular material suggests processes that are being observed near the critical point of a dense form of hydrogen [92] in the chromosphere. In moving from the corona to the photosphere, the effect of gravity becomes more important and, though temperatures might not be changing much (see [section]2.3.7), material in the chromosphere could be falling sufficiently below the critical point to allow for rapid condensation [35]. *

Whether or not critical phenomena are being expressed in the chromosphere [35], it remains relatively certain that spicules themselves represent sites of condensation in the solar atmosphere, as manifested both by their dynamic behavior and by the emission lines with which they are associated ([section]3.4, [section]3.5, [section]3.6 and [59,61]). It is highly likely that spicules are not propelling matter into the corona, but rather, that they are enabling hydrogen, present in the solar atmosphere, to reassume a condensed state and return to the solar body. In this case, they act to harvest hydrogen and return it to the photospheric intergranular lanes [59], as illustrated above in Fig. 14.

As with coronal rain, the chromospheric matter which makes up spicules should be comprised of dense hydrogen which is non-metallic, as it retains some hydrogen-hydrogen molecular interactions within its lattice [92]. This dense form of hydrogen, upon entering the pressurized environment of the solar interior, could then be transformed back to the metallic state [59].

5.7 Splashdown Events #31

Following violent flares, matter can be seen falling, in large fragments, back onto the solar surface. ([dagger]) The phenomenon resembles a huge mass of liquid projected into the air and then crashing back to the ground. A particularly impressive event was witnessed on June 7, 2011 [340,341]. Solar material was ejected, as a great, almost volcanic appearing event, occurred on the photosphere. Solar matter was projected far into the corona, reaching heights well in excess of 500,000 km. Upon reaching a certain impressive altitude, the ejected photospheric matter was seen to fall back onto the solar body. Striking the surface, the descending material produced strong brightening at the impact points.

These events elegantly support the contention that flares and CMEs are driven by the buildup of pressure within the solar interior, not by transferring energy from the corona [189]. Most importantly, following the ejection of material from a flare, the return of mass towards the solar surface can be distinctly visualized. The associated impact points provide clear evidence that the ejected material and the surface upon which it splashes are comprised of condensed matter.

5.8 Solar Winds and the Solar Cycle #32

Solar winds have presented astronomy with a wealth of information, especially when addressing variations in helium abundances [342-351]. ([double dagger]) Two kinds of solar winds can be monitored. They are known as slow (<400 km/s) and fast (400-800 km/s) winds [349]. They differ only slightly in their particles fluxes (2.7 x [10.sup.8] [cm.sup.-2] [s.sup.-1] versus 1.9 x [10.sup.8] [cm.sup.-2] [s.sup.-1], respectively), though they can have significant variations in their proton densities (8.3 [cm.sup.-3] versus 2.5 [cm.sup.-3], respectively) [349]. Fast solar winds are typically associated with coronal holes [52,349].

For the gaseous solar models, the origin of solar winds depends on the presence of a hot corona, which thermally expands as gravitational forces decrease with distance [352]. The body of the Sun is not involved, as a gaseous Sun must remain in perfect hydrostatic equilibrium, i.e. the forces of gravity must be exactly balanced with electron gas and radiation pressure [13, p. 6-7].

In bringing forth a solution for the origin of solar winds, Parker [352] would carefully consider earlier findings [353, 354]. Biermann had studied the orientation of comet tails and concluded that coronal particles were flowing away from the solar body [353]. At the same time, Unsold and Chapman deduced that the Sun was expelling charged particles responsible for geomagnetic storms and computed the associated densities [354]. Parker would make the logical link between these events, but required for his solution that the space occupied by coronal matter expanded as it moved away from the Sun [352]. In order to permit this expansion, he postulated that the corona must exist at millions of degrees [352]. He believed that the outer corona could remain very hot, since Chapman had calculated, a few years before [355], that ionized gases could possess tremendous conductivities. Therefore, heat could be channeled from the lower corona to the outer solar atmosphere, to drive the solar winds.

As a result, the gaseous models have required the impossible from the corona. The latter must be heated to temperatures well beyond those of the solar core (see [section]3.8) using processes based on magnetic fields [148, p. 239-251]. Then, it must transfer this energy in two directions. First, the corona must be able to drive all violent activity on the solar surface [12], like flares and coronal mass ejections (see [section]5.1 and [179]). Second, it must allow energy, through its elevated conductivity [355], to reach the outermost layers of the solar atmosphere. In this manner, the corona itself can provide the thermal energy required to drive the solar winds [352].

But, if energy can dissipate into the outer corona through elevated conductivity, how can it be available to drive surface activity? How does the directionally opposite flow of heat in a conductive material, like the corona, not constitute a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics? * Furthermore, why require that heat be transferred into the corona from the solar interior prior to its application elsewhere in the Sun? Why not simply let the solar body do the work?

In any event, to maintain the requirements of hydrostatic equilibrium [13, p. 6-7], the Sun must let its ultra-low density vacuum-like corona maintain every unexplained process. It does so by transferring energy from the solar interior using magnetic fields, even though gases are unable to generate such phenomena [section]5.3.

The requirements that the corona is hot also introduces the problem of the cool K-coronal spectrum (see [section]2.3.7), which must, in turn, be explained with relativistic electrons. How could relativistic electrons survive in a conductive medium? Resorting to this proposal hampers the search for the underlying causes of the solar cycle.

Conversely, Christophe Robitaille has theorized that the Sun is expelling non-hydrogen elements synthesized within its interior (private communication and [48]). ([dagger]) In the LMH model, the Sun possesses a true graphite-like layered lattice (see Fig. 2) over much of its volume, except perhaps, in the core. ([double dagger]) It is known in graphite, that layered lattices can accommodate the intercalation of atoms [18], as has been illustrated in Fig. 19. In this case, protons occupy the hexagonal planes, electrons are flowing in conduction bands, and non-hydrogen atoms are found in the intercalation regions. These atoms can freely diffuse in the intercalation zones, but would experience restricted diffusion across hexagonal hydrogen planes (see Fig. 19). Such simple considerations, within the context of intercalate structures, can readily account for the solar winds [47,48,52].

In this model, the tremendous pressures within the solar interior provide the driving forces for the solar wind. Non-hydrogen atoms in intercalation regions are being expelled from the solar body by simple mechanical action, in accordance with known exfoliative processes in graphite [48]. For instance, an atom traveling at 800 km/s could leave the center of the Sun and escape at the surface in only fifteen minutes [52]. ([section])

During quiet solar periods, the known presence of fast solar winds over coronal holes [52, 349] could be readily explained. It requires that the intraplanar axis (A in Fig. 2) of metallic hydrogen, in the polar convection zone, be positioned orthogonally to the solar surface [52]. This would enable the rapid ejection of intercalate atoms from the solar interior at the poles when the Sun is quiet. ([paragraph]) In the convection zone below the solar equator, the intraplanar axis (A in Fig. 2) would be rotated by 90[degrees], becoming parallel to the solar surface. This would act to restrict the degassing of intercalate atoms, resulting in slow solar winds above the equator.

A clearer understanding of solar winds provides new insight into helium abundances [47]. It has been argued that current estimates of solar helium levels are largely overestimated [47]. Evidence suggests that, during active periods, the Sun is expelling helium from its equatorial region, not retaining it (see Fig. 15) [47].

Helium levels in the solar wind can vary substantially with activity. When the Sun is quiet, the average He/H ratio in the slow solar wind is much less than 2%, often approaching <0.5 % (see Fig. 1 in [348]). However, when the Sun is active, the ratio approaches 4.5% [348]. Relative helium abundances can rise substantially with solar activity, like flares [347], and the He/H ratio increases dramatically during geomagnetic storms [343]. Extremely low He/H ratio values of 0.01, rising to 0.08, with an average of 0.037 have been reported, when the Sun was quiet [343]. He/H ratios can vary greatly, especially in slow solar winds [343, 346]. Therefore, astronomers have assumed that solar winds cannot be used to assay this element [347]. However, it is more likely that what is being observed has not been correctly interpreted.

Extremely low He/H ratios challenge the premise that the Sun has an elevated helium abundance [47,241,242], sending shock waves throughout cosmology (see [47] for more detail). As helium can be essentially absent from the solar wind, astronomers, rather than infer that the Sun has a low helium abundance, assume that the elements must not be properly sampled. Helium must be gravitationally settling in the Sun (see [48] for a detailed discussion) or is being destroyed on the way to the detectors by processes occurring in the corona [347, p. 298].

The fast solar wind is thought to represent a less biased appraisal of elemental abundances [347, p.295], precisely because helium is being ejected from the Sun and subsequently appears abundant. Aellig et al. report that the fast solar wind has a helium abundance of 4-5% throughout the course of their five year observation (see Fig. 2 in [348]).

These results can be readily explained when considering that the Sun is condensed matter. When the Sun is quiet, it is degassing its intercalation regions, primarily from the poles. Large amounts of helium can accordingly populate the fast solar wind. When solar activity is initiated, the Sun begins to degas its equatorial regions. Much of this helium then travels along with slow solar winds to our detectors, and those concentrations are likewise elevated. However, when the Sun is quiet, virtually no helium reaches our detectors in the slow solar winds, as this element is now trapped in the equatorial intercalation regions. This scenario provides strong motivation for concluding that the Sun is actively degassing helium and that the true internal abundances of this element must be much lower than currently estimated [47,241,242]. *

Not only can the LMH model account for the production of solar winds, but it advances an underlying cause of the solar cycle: degassing of the solar body [48, 52]. When the Sun is quiet, fast solar winds are able to degas the convection zones below the poles. This helps to explain why sunspots are never seen at these latitudes. However, during this period, the equatorial regions are experiencing restricted degassing. This is due to the parallel orientation of the hexagonal hydrogen planes in layered metallic hydrogen lattice, with respect to the solar surface. Such an orientation prevails in the underlying convection zone when the Sun is quiet. Solar activity is initiated when active degassing of the equatorial planes begins. This occurs in association with a rotation or partial breakdown of the hydrogen planes, as was seen when discussing sunspots ([section]2.3.3). This is the reason why coronal holes can appear anywhere on the solar surface when the Sun is active, as discussed in [section]4.6. When accounting for solar winds, coronal holes, and solar activity, the LMH model far surpasses in insight anything offered by the gaseous models.

6 Helioseismic Lines of Evidence

Seismology remains a science of the condensed state. Even so, proponents of the gaseous models adhere to the belief that helioseismology can claim otherwise. In this section, a group of six helioseismic conclusions will be briefly examined. Each provides compelling evidence that the Sun is comprised of condensed matter. It might be argued that other helioseismic lines of evidence could be extracted. Only six have been selected for their scientific impact.

6.1 Solar Body Oscillations #33

The Sun acts as a resonant cavity. ([dagger]) It sustains oscillations, as sound waves travel (see Fig. 25), within its interior [356-360]. The most prevalent solar oscillation has a period of 5 minutes, but many more modes exist [356-360]. Thus, the solar surface is reflecting internal audio waves and this causes the entire solar body to ring', as it succumbs to seismic activity.

Though scientists currently utilize helioseismologyto justify the gaseous models [356-360], the conclusions would be better suited to a condensed Sun. It is not reasonable that a photosphere, with a density of only ~[10.sup.-7] g/[cm.sup.3] [148], can act as a resonant cavity. Within the gaseous models, the Sun has no distinct surface, hence it cannot provide a physical boundary to sustain solar oscillations.

Fig. 25 displays slight differences in sound speed with the standard gaseous model. A detailed analysis of such studies can be profitable. Bahcall et al. [361] have also compared theoretical results with experimental helioseismic findings for standard gaseous models. Absolutely amazing fits are obtained throughout the solar interior, but the authors fail to provide comparisons for the outer 5% of the Sun (see Figs. 12 and 13 in [361]). Yet, all observational data is being acquired precisely from this region. Therefore, any perceived experimental/theoretical agreement has little validity.

As was concluded in [section]3.1, the Sun presents the observer with a distinct surface in the UV and X-Ray bands. This surface is covered by low-frequency 3 mHz oscillations [362]. Evidence for a distinct surface has also been presented by gamma-ray flares (see [section]3.2). The Sun behaves as a resonant cavity in the audio bands, implying a true surface. But the gaseous models must maintain that the solar surface is but an illusion', to somewhat poorly account for limb darkening (see [section]2.3.2). Unfortunately, illusions make for poor resonant cavities. It is more logical to infer that the Sun has a distinct surface over the entire span of relevant wavelengths (audio to X-ray), as provided by condensed matter.

Despite denial that the Sun is either liquid or solid, astronomers refer to solar seismic events as "similar to earthquakes" [362]. Such analogies are in keeping with the known truth that seismology is a science of condensed matter. The same can be said for the Sun.

6.2 Mass displacement #34

On July 9, 1996 a powerful X-ray flare disrupted the solar surface, as illustrated in Fig. 26 [362, 363]. * This image was obtained through Doppler methods. Consequently, material moving towards the observer appeared brighter, while matter propagating away from the detector seemed darker. Therefore, the flare itself was bright.

Kosovichev and Zharkova [362] support the notion, central to the gaseous models, that flares are being excited with coronal energy. They suggest that "a high-energy electron beam (is) heating the cool chromospheric 'target'". Surface activity is driven, not from the interior of the Sun, but from the coronal vacuum. Nonetheless, the displacement of material observed in Fig. 25 strongly supports Zollner's ideas regarding the nature of solar flares, as previously discussed in [section]5.1 and [section]5.7. It appears that the flare was produced when pressurized material was ejected from the solar body beyond the photospheric surface.

But, when the flare emerged, it produced enormous transverse waves on the surface of the Sun. The crest to crest distances are on the order of 10 Mm. Kosovichev and Zharkova [362] describe these transverse waves as "resembling ripples from a pebble, thrown into a pond" and maintain that the behavior can be explained with computations involving gas models. Still, they visualize "ripples on a pond", a direct reference to behavior which can only be observed in condensed matter. Gases can sustain longitudinal, not transverse waves. Attempts to generate these waves, not only in a gas, but in an ultra-low-density vacuum, challenges scientific reason.

6.3 Higher Order Shape #35

Seismological studies have revealed that the Sun is not perfectly oblate ([section]4.4) but rather, is characterized by higher order quadrupolar and hexadecapolar shape terms which appear dependent on the solar cycle [364]. ([dagger]) Higher order shape terms involve forces beyond those produced with simple rotation of a homogeneous liquid mass. They imply internal structure within the Sun. Hence, they stand as a sublime indication that the solar body possesses real structure beyond the core.

It would be extremely difficult to justify that fully gaseous objects could ever sustain observable internal structural effects. Yet, the higher order quadrupolar and hexadecapolar shape terms must arise from internal structure. Conversely, within the context of the LMH model, higher order shape terms would be expected. It has already been mentioned that the hexagonal hydrogen plane orientation (see Fig. 19), at the level of the convection zone, could account for coronal holes, solar winds, and the solar cycle (see [section]5.8). Hexagonal hydrogen planes could give rise to large layers, moving over one another, whose orientation relative to the solar surface could slowly vary from equatorial to polar regions (i.e. parallel versus orthogonal). ([double dagger]) This would give rise to true underlying structure in the convection zone, as expressed in higher order shape terms.

6.4 Tachocline and Convective Zones #36

The Sun possesses a convection zone characterized by differential rotation [356-360]. ([section]) While a gas can easily be thought to undergo differential rotation, the Sun is characterized by another region: a tachocline layer separates the convection zone from the solid solar core (see [section]6.5).

The tachocline region acts as a shear layer within the Sun. This layer is known to be prolate in nature [360, 365-367]. The tachocline is generally thicker and shallower at the higher latitudes [360, 366]. It seems to display some temporal variability across the solar cycle [366], strongly suggesting, once again, that structural changes are taking place within the solar body (see [section]5.8 and [section]6.3).

When considering the tachocline layer, it is important to recall that shear stresses require the presence of a physical plane. For instance, the equation for shear stress, [tau], states that [tau] = F/A, where F = force and A = Area. It is not possible to have a shear stress without acting on a surface, or an organized lattice plane of atoms, as provided by condensed matter. Imaginary planes cannot experience shear forces.

Consequently, the shear nature of the tachocline, and the fact that it displays a prolate nature, provides clear evidence that the solar body is physically structured. Furthermore, it appears that this is an area of the Sun which can undergo changes with the solar cycle. These results are most gracefully explained by the LMH model.

6.5 Solar Core #37

As was suggested in [section]6.4, the core of the Sun undergoes solid body rotation [368]. * This conclusion, has been reached by a virtual who's who of authority in helioseismology [368]. In the central portion of the Sun, "... the rotation rate appears to be very little, if at all. Its value is 430nHz" [368].

Solid body rotation in the solar interior directly implies that the body of the Sun cannot be gaseous. This rotation requires the presence of powerful cohesive forces within the Sun. None can exist in a gaseous object.

The observation is more in line with Setsuo Ichimaru's conjecture ([section]2.3.1 and [section]5.8) that the central portion of the Sun can be considered to exist as a one-component plasma of metallic hydrogen [97, pp. 103 & 209]. Ichimaru adopted the body-centered cubic structure in his studies [97-99] and this lattice configuration would make sense at the center of the Sun.

In this respect, Ichimaru based the density of metallic hydrogen in the core on conclusions derived from gaseous models. If the photosphere of the Sun is truly condensed, then the values he adopted (56.2 g/[cm.sup.3] [98, p. 2660]) would be much too elevated. In a liquid model, the density cannot vary much throughout the solar body, remaining near 1.4 g/[cm.sup.3] (i.e. slightly lower at the photosphere and slightly higher in the core). At the center of the Sun, we are merely witnessing a change in lattice structure from a layered Type-I lattice over most of the photosphere, to a more metallic layered Type II lattice in the convection zone, and finally to a body-centered cubic lattice in the core. Intercalate atoms would be present within Type I and Type II layered lattices. If they change from the condensed to the gaseous phase, these intercalate atoms could slightly reduce the average densities of these layers.

The LMH model is more in keeping with physical observations within the Sun. It is not reasonable to advance that gases rotate as solid bodies. Condensed matter enables the formation of a solid core which can account for the observed rotations.

6.6 Atmospheric Seismology #38

Helioseismology has been extended to the outer solar atmosphere [214,369-372]. ([dagger]) Coronal and chromospheric studies [214, 369-372] have successfully detected seismic waves in this region of the Sun and the presence of both incompressible and compressible waves is now well-established. These are viewed as magnetohydrodynamic waves (MHD) in nature. ([double dagger])

The existence of incompressible transverse waves in the solar atmosphere [214,369-372] suggests, once again, that this region of the Sun contains condensed matter. These have been observed in spicules [214] and within the chromospheric level [372]. Their detection implies that the densities of these solar layers are well in excess of those which typify Earthly vacuums.

As a point of interest, it is known that comets can send shock waves throughout the solar corona and chromosphere. On January 29, 2013 (see [373]), a comet begins to disrupt the solar atmosphere when it is more than 1[R.sub.[??]] away from the solar surface. At this location, the corona has no density (<[10.sup.-15] g/[cm.sup.3], the density of the upper chromosphere [148]), according to the gaseous models. It is unfeasible that an ultra-low-pressure vacuum could be able to respond to the entry of a comet in this manner. The ability of comets to trigger shock wave propagation throughout the solar atmosphere indicates that this is a region of elevated density. This conclusion is in keeping with the LMH model of the Sun.

7 Elemental Lines of Evidence

7.1 Nucleosynthesis #39

It has been gloriously stated that the elements were formed in the stars. ([section]) In this, there appears to be much truth [374-388]. From its inception, stellar nucleosynthesis has always been closely linked to stellar evolution [129,374-378].

The idea that the Sun could synthesize helium was first proposed by men such as Gamow [377, 378], Bethe [379-381], von Weisacker [382] and Hoyle [383,384]. The p-p reaction, wherein two protons combine to make a deuteron, while relying on positron and neutrino emission, would come to play a vital role in (4) He synthesis within low mass stars [374, p. 118]. For stars with a greater mass than the Sun, Bethe and von Weisacker, in 1938 and 1939 [380-382], advanced that (4) He was being formed in a simple cycle involving nitrogen, carbon, and oxygen (CNO).

Early on, Hans Bethe had argued that "no element heavier than (4) He can be built up in ordinary stars" [381]. With those words, the Sun was crippled and stripped of its ability to make any element beyond helium.

Bethe had reached his conclusion based on the probability of nuclear reactions in the gas phase and at the temperatures of ordinary stellar cores [381, p. 435]. If this was true, how did the Sun come to acquire the other elements? For Bethe, the answer appeared straightforward, "The heavier elements found in stars must therefore have existed already when the star was formed" [381]. Extremely large and hot, first generation stars, had, soon after the Big Bang, created the heavy elements [389]. These elements merely represented contamination in the Sun, a product of objects extinguished long ago.

At the time that the CNO cycle was outlined [380-382],

the discovery of metabolic cycles was creating a fury in biology. Just a few years before, in 1932, Hans Krebs (Nobel Prize, Medicine and Physiology, 1953) had discovered the urea cycle [390]. He would go on to outline the tricarboxylic acid (TCA or Krebs) cycle in 1937 [391], the discovery for which he gained international acclaim. It cannot be doubted that these great pathways in biology influenced astrophysical thought. Cycles seemed all powerful.

Biological cycles initially concealed their many lessons. It would take years to fully understand that they were highly regulated entities. Biological cycles required a complement of reactions and cofactors (small activator molecules or ions) which could either sustain the levels of intermediates or activate key enzymatic reactions. Similar regulation would be difficult to envision in the case of the CNO cycle. As a result, can this cycle truly occupy central positions in the synthesis of (4) He in the stars? Why confound the process by resorting to a cycle, when simple reactions between hydrogen atoms should be sufficient for all stars?

It would seem fortuitous that precisely the proper amounts of carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen has been distributed within stellar interiors, to permit these reactions to take place. If stars are truly gaseous, how do they ensure that these elements are not destroyed, or used up, by competing nuclear reactions --something which can be prevented or exploited to advantage in biology? Unlike a biological cell, with its intricate means of forming, separating, and transferring metabolites, the gaseous star cannot control the course of a single reaction. Everything must occur by chance. This complication is directly opposed to the subsistence of cycles. *

Concerning nucleosynthesis, proponents of the gaseous models require the improbable. Hobbled by theory, they must claim that first generation stars created the heavy elements. Moreover, they advance that, while mankind has successfully synthesized many elements, the Sun is unable to build anything beyond helium. First generation stars which no longer exist had done all the work [389]. These conclusions, once again, call for the suspension of disbelief. It is much more reasonable to assume that the Sun has the ability to synthesize all the naturally occurring elements, based on their presence in the solar atmosphere.

In turning his attention to dense plasmas, Ichimaru recognized that they could provide additional freedom in elemental synthesis [97-99]. These ideas have merit. In the LMH model, dense structures enable the synthesis of heavy elements which is not restricted to the solar core, but expressed in the convection zone where the intercalation regions can be found.

A metallic hydrogen framework can restrict protons to lattice points in the hexagonal plane and confine other atoms to the intercalate layer [48]. Solar pressure and lattice vibrations could act in concert to enhance the probability of nuclear reactions. Two adjacent protons, in the hexagonal hydrogen plane, could give rise to a deuterium atom, with the associated positron and neutrino emission [388]. This deuterium could then react with another, leading directly to the synthesis of (4) He. Alternatively, it could fuse with a proton, leading to the formation of (3) He. Both (4) He and the light helium isotope, (3) He, would be immediately ejected into the intercalation region [48]. ([dagger]) Over time, the intercalation region could sustain other nuclear reactions and become the birthplace of all naturally occurring heavy isotopes. The Sun and the stars gain the ability to synthesize all of the elements [44, 48].

In this regard, it is well-known that solar flares can give tremendous 3 He abundance enhancements [180]. Eruptive flares have been known to produce (3) He/(4) He ratios approaching 1 [186], and thousand-fold enhancements of this ratio have been observed [392]. These findings can be better understood in a solar model wherein (3) He is being preferably channeled into intercalation regions over (4) He. (3) He could then display an enhancement over (4) He when released into the solar atmosphere during activity. ([double dagger]) It would be difficult to account for the finding for the gaseous models, but the result can be reasonably explained using the LMH model. ([section]10)

8 Earthly Lines of Evidence

The earthly lines of evidence may be the most powerful. They are certainly the most far reaching. Climate dictates our future and the survival of humanity.

Thus, it is fitting to close this discussion with the climatic line of evidence. This acts to highlight that there is much more to studying the Sun than intellectual curiosity. As such, the 'Young Sun Problem' and the great Maunder minimum of the middle ages are briefly discussed. ([paragraph])

8.1 Climatic #40

8.1.1 The Young Sun Problem

The gaseous models infer that, when the Sun was young, it was much cooler than it is at present [393-395]. Once thought to be faint and dissipating much less heat onto the surface of the Earth, a gaseous Sun became increasingly warm over time. Thus, the Sun was once thought to be faint, dissipating little energy onto the Earth. Two billion years ago, the mean temperature of the Earth's surface would have been below the freezing point of water [393]. A paradox arises, since geological studies have revealed that water existed on Earth in liquid state as early as 3.8 billion years ago [393-395].

In order to resolve this problem, Carl Sagan was one of the first to advance that the answer could be found in the Earth's atmosphere [395]. If the young atmosphere was rich in C[O.sub.2], then the greenhouse effect and global warming [396] provided an explanation [393-395]. Everything appeared to be resolved [393].

Still, some remained unsatisfied with the greenhouse solution. Several stated that a young Sun was more massive and accordingly, hotter [393, p. 457]. In this scenario our Sun lost enormous amounts of material over the years through "a vigourous, pulsation driven, solar wind" [393, p. 457]. The young Sun could have been fifteen times more luminous than now, simply as a consequence of these changes in mass [393, p. 458].

But, it is difficult to conceive how a gaseous star, violently expelling mass despite great gravity, will cease to do so as gravitational forces decrease. Nonetheless, these basic ideas have survived, although with less dramatic changes in mass loss [397]. In this approach, the gaseous young Sun was not faint, but bright [397]. This was more in keeping with warm temperatures both on the Earth and on Mars [397]. Greenhouse effects could not simultaneously explain these findings.

In the end, the LMH model has a distinct advantage relative to the young Sun problem. Only the gaseous equations of state demand that a star like the Sun must become increasingly luminous as it evolves. * But over time, a Sun based on condensed matter, should cool from the most luminous (Class O) to the coolest star type (i.e. Class M).

Some may highlight that, if our Sun was once an O class star, there should be no water on Earth. The supposition is not valid. When the Earth was young, scientific consensus states that it was molten (see e.g. [399]). This can be easily explained if the Sun was once an O Class star, but not if it was a faint gaseous object. The Earth, like our Sun, cooled over time. The LMH model is much more in accordance with observational facts in this regard. ([dagger])

8.1.2 The Maunder Minimum

A great minimum appeared in the Sunspot cycle during the middle ages. This minimum was first recognized by Sporer and Maunder [400-404]. It is known today as the Maunder minimum [403]. Many believe that the Maunder minimum was associated with a 'little ice age' on Earth [403]. The conclusion is particularly timely, since the Sun may be entering another minimum in 2013, as solar activity apparently drops to a 100 year low [405].

What causes these minimae? In gaseous models, the answers will be difficult to ascertain, as these ideas have difficulty accounting for any solar activity. As for the LMH model, it is based on the tenant that solar activity must be fundamentally related to degassing of intercalate atoms. Perhaps the Maunder minimum arises because the Sun has been thoroughly degassed, either through an unknown internal mechanism or an external force.

In this regard, it may be important to recall that comets appear to send shock waves through the solar atmosphere as they come near the Sun [373]. These shock waves could be degassing our star beyond normal, hence reducing the need for future solar activity. Shock degassing may seem unlikely. However, comets do have periodic motions around the Sun. One or more could cyclically return to cause such effects. In this respect, the comet ISON is arriving in just a few days [406]. It will be interesting to note the shock wave it commands as it orbits the Sun. ([double dagger])

8.2 Conclusion

Throughout these pages, a trial has unfolded relative to the constitution of the Sun. Prudent consideration of the question requires the objective analysis of solar data. Observations must be gathered and rigorously considered in light of known laboratory findings. Such were the lessons imparted long ago when Gustav Kirchhoff first contemplated the nature of the Sun [26].

Kirchhoff's approach has now been repeated. A wealth of information has been categorized and meticulously evaluated. Data spanning every aspect of the solar science has been included. Not a single fact was deliberately omitted or ignored. Rather, the full complement of available evidence has been weighed and described. The Sun itself was permitted to offer full testimony. In completing this exercise, a total of forty lines of evidence have been addressed in seven broad categories. Each has spoken in favor of condensed matter.

Of these, the Planckian lines of evidence, as outlined in [section] 2, will always merit the preeminent positions, since they directly reveal true lattice structure at the atomic level. The solar spectrum, limb darkening, and the directional emissivity of many structures (sunspots, granules, faculae, magnetic bright points, spicules, the K-corona, and coronal structures) highlight that metallic and non-metallic material can be found within the Sun.

The spectroscopic lines of evidence may well be the most elegant. It is not only that they provide obvious clues for a solar surface, but that they finally expose the underlying cause of line emission within the chromosphere and corona. In this regard, molecular hydrogen and the metal hydrides strongly suggest that the chromospheric flash spectrum reflects the presence of condensation reactions in the solar atmosphere. Yet, it is triplet helium which has rendered the most definitive declaration. It appears that an activated helium cycle does indeed exist in the chromosphere, harvesting hydrogen atoms and enabling them to rejoin the solar surface. In concert, the cool-LMH-containing K-corona scavenges electrons, thus helping to preserve solar neutrality. The associated light emission from highly ionized ions speaks to the power of spectroscopic observation.

The structural lines of evidence remain the simplest to understand. The many arguments concerning solar collapse, density, dimension, shape, appearance, and extent, are simultaneously straightforward and disarming.

Perhaps the most intriguing lines of evidence are dynamic manifestations of solar activity. Surface activity, the boiling action of the Sun, and the orthogonal arrangement of its photospheric/coronal flows leave no opportunity for a gaseous Sun. The existence of a solar dynamo, with its requirement for the interplay between conductors and insulators, offers no more. Coronal rain and loops, along with spicular velocities and splashdown events, require the presence of condensed matter. Slow and fast solar winds point to an object constantly striving to expel material, emphasizing the dynamic aspects of a condensed Sun.

Few sciences are more tied to condensed matter than seismology. The Sun with its oscillations, mass displacements, shape, internal layers (convection zone, tachocline, and core), and atmospheric waves, has highlighted that it belongs in the company of solids and liquids.

Elemental lines of evidence call for a complete revision of scientific thought relative to how the Sun derives its energy. First generation stars must join the company of other untenable theories, as an unchained Sun is finally permitted to synthesize all of the elements.

The sole earthly line of evidence was climatic. In ages past, the Earth was molten. The Sun must have been much more luminous than it is today, leading to the conclusion that it was born as an O-class star. Its temporal variations across the ages, might be best understood as an ever-present need to eject elements from its interior.

Finally, a conclusion must inevitably be drawn. Can a gaseous Sun truly survive, based solely on mathematical arguments, when not a single observational line of evidence lends it support? In the end, such an arsenal of observational proofs has been supplied that there can be little doubt in the answer. Formulas can never supersede observational findings. Hence, only a single verdict can be logically rendered. The Sun must be comprised of condensed matter.

The consequences are far reaching. They call for a new beginning in astronomy. Nonetheless, there is hope that a reformulation of astrophysics can bring with it a wealth of knowledge and discovery. As scientists turn their thoughts to a condensed Sun, may they renew their fervor in the pursuit and understanding of stellar observations.

Epilogue

No more appropriate closing words can be uttered than those of Cecilia Payne, she who established that we live in a hydrogen based universe [86]: "The future of a subject is the product of its past, and the hopes of astrophysics should be implicit in what the science has already achieved. Astrophysics is a young science, however, and is still, to some extent, in a position of choosing its route; it is very much to be desired that present effort should be so directed that the chosen path maylead in a permanently productive direction. The direction in which progress lies will depend on the material available, on the development of theory, and on the trend of thought ... The future progress of theory is a harder subject for prediction, than the future progress of observation. But one thing is certain: observation must make the way for theory, and only if it does can the science have its greatest productivity ... There is hope that the high promise of astrophysics may be brought to fruition." Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin [407, p. 199-201].

Acknowledgment

The Swedish 1-m Solar Telescope science team is recognized for Figs. 3, 7, and 9. The SST is operated on the island of La Palma by the Institute for Solar Physics of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias.

NASA/SDO and the AIA science team acquired the data displayed in Fig. 11. NASA/SOHO and the EIT, CDS, and MDI science teams, were responsible for Figs. 15, 20, 22, and 26. The Big Bear Solar Observatory is recognized for Fig. 24. *

Luc Robitaille is acknowledged for the preparation of all other figures.

Not enough can be said of Dmitri Rabounski and Larissa Borissova with respect to their lifelong love of science and their immediate interest in the problem of liquid stars [408].

Dedication

This work is dedicated to those who, through their support, sacrifice, compassion, and understanding, permitted that my life be dedicated to science--my wife Patricia Anne * and our sons: Jacob, ([dagger]) Christophe, ([double dagger]) and Luc. ([section]11)

Submitted on: October 7, 2013

Accepted in revised form on: October 13, 2013

First published online on: October 13, 2013

References

[1.] Secchi A. Le Soleil (Vol. I/II). Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1875/1877. (Available online: Vol. I--http://archive.org/details/lesoleil01secc; Vol. II--http://archive.org/details/lesoleil02secc).

[2.] Robitaille P.M. A thermodynamic history of the solar constitution--I: The journey to a gaseous Sun. Progr. Phys., 2011, v. 3, 3-25.

[3.] Robitaille P.M. A thermodynamic history of the solar constitution--II: The theory of a gaseous Sun and Jeans' failed liquid alternative. Progr. Phys., 2011, v. 3, 41-59.

[4.] Robitaille P.-M. On the presence of a distinct solar surface: A reply to Herve Faye. Progr. Phys., 2011, v. 3, 75-78.

[5.] Abbot C.G. The Sun. D. Appleton and Company. New York, 1911.

[6.] Maunder E.W. Are the planets inhabited? Harper & Brothers, London, 1913.

[7.] Fowler A. Some problems in astronomy IV. Solar and stellar photospheres. The Observatory, 1913, v. 36, 182-185.

[8.] University of Cambridge, Institute of Astronomy, Ph.D. Program, Requirements for Admission to Postgraduate Study (accessed online on 8/29/2013: http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/admissions/phd).

[9.] Eddington A.S. The internal constitution of the stars. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 1926.

[10.] Fowler R.H. On dense matter. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 1926, v. 87, 114-122.

[11.] Bahcall J.N. and Pinsonneault M.H. Standard solar models, with and without helium diffusion, and the solar neutrino problem. Rev. Mod. Phys., 1992, v. 64, no. 4, 885-926.

[12.] Hassan S.S. Magnetic flux tubes and activity on the Sun. In, Lectures on Solar Physics (H.M. Antia, A. Bhatnagar and R. Ulmschneider, Eds.), Springer, Berlin, 2003, p. 173-201.

[13.] Kippenhahn R. and Weigert A. Stellar structure and evolution. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990.

[14.] Clayton D.D. Principles of stellar evolution and nucleosynthesis. MgGraw-Hill, New York, 1968.

[15.] Kirchhoff G. Uber den Zusammenhang zwischen Emission und Absorption von Licht und. Warme. Monatsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, sessions of Dec. 1859, 1860, 783-787.

[16.] Kirchhoff G. Uber das Verhaltnis zwischen dem Emissionsvermtigen und dem Absorptionsvermogen. der Korper fur Warme und Licht. Poggendorfs Annalen der Physik und Chemie, 1860, v. 109, 275-301. (English translation by F. Guthrie: Kirchhoff G. On the relation between the radiating and the absorbing powers of different bodies for light and heat. Phil. Mag., 1860, ser. 4, v. 20, 1-21).

[17.] Wien W. Uber die Energieverteilung in Emissionspektrum eines schwarzen Korpers. Ann. Phys., 1896, v. 58, 662-669.

[18.] Stefan J. Uber die Beziehung zwischen der Warmestrahlung und der Temperature. Sitzungsberichte der mathematischnatur wissenschaftlichen Classe der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien 1879, v. 79, 391-428.

[19.] Planck M. Uber das Gesetz der Energieverteilung im Normalspektrum. Annalen der Physik, 1901, v. 4, 553-563 (English translation by ter Haar D.: Planck M. On the theory of the energy distribution law in the normal spectrum. The old quantum theory. Pergamon Press, 1967, 8290; also Planck's December 14, 1900 lecture Zur Theorie des Gesetzes der Energieverteilung in Normalspectrum, which stems from this paper, can be found in either German, or English, in: Kangro H. Classic papers in physics: Planck's original papers in quantum physics. Taylor & Francis, London, 1972, 6-14 or 38-45).

[20.] Planck M. The theory of heat radiation. P. Blakiston's Son & Co., Philadelphia, PA, 1914.

[21.] Robitaille P-M. On the validity of Kirchhoff's law of thermal emission. IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., 2003, v. 31, no. 6, 1263-1267.

[22.] Robitaille P.-M. A critical analysis of universality and Kirchhoff's Law: A return to Stewart's Law of Thermal Emission. Progr. Phys., 2008, v. 3, 30-35.

[23.] Robitaille P.-M. Blackbody radiation and the carbon particle. Progr. Phys., 2008, v. 3, 36-55.

[24.] Robitaille P.-M. Kirchhoff's law of thermal emission: 150 Years. Progr. Phys., 2009, v. 4, 3-13.

[25.] Stewart B. An account of some experiments on radiant heat, involving an extension of Prevost's theory of exchanges. Trans. Royal Soc. Edinburgh, 1858, v. 22, no. 1, 1-20 (also found in Harper's Scientific Memoirs, edited by J.S. Ames: The Laws of Radiation and Absorption: Memoirs of Prevost, Stewart, Kirchhoff, and Kirchhoff and Bunsen, translated and edited by D.B. Brace, American Book Company, New York, 1901, 21-50).

[26.] Kirchhoff G. The physical constitution of the Sun. In Researches on the solar spectrum and the spectra of the chemical elements. Translated by H.E. Roscoe, Macmillan and Co., Cambridge, 1862, 23-31.

[27.] Jeans J.H. Problems of Cosmogony and Stellar Dynamics--Being an Essay to which the Adams Prize of the University of Cambridge for the year 1917 was Adjudged. Cambridge University Press, 1919.

[28.] Jeans J.H. Astronomy and Cosmogony. Cambridge University Press, 1928.

[29.] Robitaille P.M. The collapse of the Big Bang and the gaseous Sun. New York Times, March 17, 2002, p. A10 (available online: http://thermalphysics.org/pdf/times.pdf).

[30.] Robitaille P.M. Evidence for a liquid plasma model of the Sun. Am. Phys. Soc. Meeting--April, 2004, S280002.

[31.] Robitaille P.M. The Sun as a hot liquid plasma: additional evidence. Am. Phys. Soc. Meeting--Ohio Spring, 2004, S50002.

[32.] Robitaille P.M. The photosphere as condensed matter. Am. Phys. Soc. Meeting--Ohio Fall, 2004, S60005.

[33.] Robitaille P.M. The Sun as a hot liquid plasma: more evidence. Am. Phys. Soc. Meeting--NE Fall, 2004, S10004.

[34.] Robitaille P.M. The Sun as a high energy/high density liquid metallic hydrogen plasma. The 33rd IEEE International Conference on Plasma Science, June 4-8, 2006, Traverse City, Michigan, p. 461, DOI:10.1109/PLASMA.2006.1707334.

[35.] Robitaille P.M. The solar photosphere: Evidence for condensed matter. Progr. Phys., 2006, v. 2, 17-21 (also found in slightly modified form within Research Disclosure, 2006, v.501, 31-34; title #501019).

[36.] Robitaille P.M. A high temperature liquid plasma model of the Sun. Progr. Phys., 2007, v. 1, 70-81 (also in arXiv: astro-ph/0410075v2, Oct. 4, 2004).

[37.] Robitaille P.M. A radically different point of view on the CMB. In, Questions of Modern Cosmology--Galileo's Legacy, ed. by M. D'Onofrio and C. Burigana, Springer, New York, 2009, p. 93-108.

[38.] Robitaille P.M. Liquid metallic hydrogen: Building block of a liquid Sun. Am. Phys. Soc. Meeting--Ohio Spring, 2011, D4.00005.

[39.] Robitaille P.M. Liquid metallic hydrogen: A Building block for the liquid Sun. Progr. Phys., 2011, v. 3, 69-74.

[40.] Robitaille P.M. On solar granulations, limb darkening, and sunspots: Brief insights in remembrance of Father Angelo Secchi. Progr. Phys., 2011, v. 3, 79-88.

[41.] Robitaille P.M. On the temperature of the photosphere: Energy partition in the Sun. Progr. Phys., 2011, v. 3, 89-92.

[42.] Robitaille P.M. Stellar opacity: The Achilles heel of the gaseous Sun. Progr. Phys., 2011, v. 3, 93-99.

[43.] Robitaille P.M. Lessons from the Sun. Progr. Phys., 2011, v. 3, 100-102.

[44.] Robitaille P.M. Nucleosynthesis of the elements and the LMH model of the Sun. Am. Phys. Soc. Meeting--Four Corners Annual, 2012, D1.00026.

[45.] Robitaille P.M. Magnetic fields and directional spectral emissivity in sunspots and faculae: Complimentary evidence of metallic behavior on the surface of the Sun. Progr. Phys., 2013, v. 1, 19-24.

[46.] Robitaille P.M. On the nature of the chromosphere: Condensation and line emission. Am. Phys. Soc. Meeting--Ohio Spring, 2013, E2.00007.

[47.] Robitaille P.-M. Liquid metallic hydrogen II. A critical assessment of current and primordial helium levels in the Sun. Progr. Phys., 2013, v. 2, 35-47.

[48.] Robitaille J.C. and Robitaille P.-M. Liquid metallic hydrogen III. Intercalation and lattice exclusion versus gravitational settling and their consequences relative to internal structure, surface activity, and solar winds in the Sun. Progr. Phys., 2013, v. 2, 87-97.

[49.] Robitaille P.-M. Commentary relative to the distribution of gamma-ray flares on the Sun: Further evidence for a distinct solar surface. Progr. Phys., 2013, v. 2,L1-L2.

[50.] Robitaille P.-M. Commentary relative to the seismic structure of the Sun: Internal rotation, oblateness, and solar shape. Progr. Phys., 2013, v. 2, L3-L4.

[51.] Robitaille P.-M. Commentary on the radius of the Sun: Optical illusion or manifestation of a real surface? Progr. Phys., 2013, v. 2, L5-L6.

[52.] Robitaille P.-M. Commentary on the LMH model of the Sun: Insight relative to coronal holes, sunspots, and solar activity. Progr. Phys., 2013, v.2,L7-L9.

[53.] Robitaille P.-M. Commentary on the LMH model of the Sun II. Insight relative to coronal rain and splashdown events. Progr. Phys., 2013, v. 2, L10-L11.

[54.] Robitaille P.M. Commentary on the LMH model of the Sun III. Insight into solar lithium abundances. Progr. Phys., 2013, v. 2, L12-L13.

[55.] Robitaille P.-M. Commentary relative to the emission spectrum of the solar atmosphere: Further evidence for a distinct solar surface. Progr. Phys., 2013, v. 3, L2-L4.

[56.] Robitaille P.-M. The LMH model of the Sun and the solar atmosphere I. Continuous emission and condensed matter within the chromosphere. Progr. Phys., 2013, v. 3, L5-L7.

[57.] Robitaille P.-M. The LMH model of the Sun and the solar atmosphere II. Continuous emission and condensed matter within the corona. Progr. Phys., 2013, v. 3, L8-L10.

[58.] Robitaille P.-M. The LMH model of the Sun and the solar atmosphere III. Importance of continuous emission spectra from flares, coronal mass ejections, prominences, and other coronal structures. Progr. Phys., 2013, v. 3, L11-L14.

[59.] Robitaille P.-M. The LMH model of the Sun and the solar atmosphere IV. On the nature of the chromosphere. Progr. Phys., 2013, v. 3, L15 L21.

[60.] Robitaille P.-M. The LMH model of the Sun and the solar atmosphere V. On the nature of the corona. Progr. Phys., 2013, v. 3, L22-L25.

[61.] Robitaille P-M. The LMH model of the Sun and the solar atmosphere VI. Helium in the chromosphere. Progr. Phys., 2013, v. 3, L26-L29.

[62.] Robitaille P.M. The LMH model of the Sun and the solar atmosphere VII. Further insights into the chromosphere and corona. Progr. Phys., 2013, v. 3, L30-L36.

[63.] Agassi J. The Kirchhoff-Planck radiation law. Science, 1967, v. 156, no. 3771, 30-37.

[64.] Robitaille P.M. Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck (1858-1947). Progr. Phys., 2007, v. 4, 117-120.

[65.] Heilbron J.L. The Dilemmas of an Upright Man--Max Planck and the Fortunes of German Science. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996.

[66.] Modest M.F. Radiative heat transfer. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1993, p. 92-108.

[67.] Carrington R.C. Observations on the Spots of the Sun, from November, 9, 1853, to March 24, 1861, Made at Redhill. Williams and Norgate, London, 1863.

[68.] Kitchatinov L.L. Solar differential rotation: Origin, models, and implications for dynamo. ASI Conference Series--1st Asia Pacific Solar Physics Meeting, 2011, v. 2, 71-80 (also available online: arXiv:1108.1604v2 [astro-ph.SR] 9/4/2013).

[69.] Milne E.A. Thermodynamics of the stars. Handbuch der Astrophysik, 1930, v. 3, Part 1, 65-255 (also in Menzel D.H. Selected Papers on the Transfer of Radiation: 6 papers by Arthur Schuster, K. Schwarzschild, A.S. Eddington, S. Rosseland, E.A. Milne. Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1966, p. 77-269).

[70.] Robitaille P.M. The little heat engine: Heat transfer in solids, liquids, and gases. Progr. Phys., 2007, v. 4, 25-33.

[71.] Touloukian Y.S., DeWitt D.P. Thermophysical Properties of Matter (Vols. 1-8), IFI/Plenum, New York, 1972.

[72.] Thirumaleshwar M. Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer, Dorling Kindersley, Dehli, 2009, p. 652.

[73.] Incropera F.P., DeWitt D.P., Bergman T.L. and Lavine A.S. Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer, 6th Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Hobo ken, NJ, 2007.

[74.] Langley S. P. Experimental determination of wave-lengths in the invisible prismatic spectrum. Mem. Natl. Acad. Sci., 1883, v. 2, 147-162; Plate 12 and 21.

[75.] Langley S. P. On hitherto unrecognized wavelengths. Phil. Mag., 1886, v. 22, 149-173; Plate IV-VI.

[76.] Kelly B.T. Physics of graphite. Applied Science Publishers, London, U.K., 1981, p. 34-61.

[77.] Delhaes P. World of carbon--vol. 1: Graphite and precursors. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2001.

[78.] Pierson H.O. Handbook of carbon, graphite, diamond and fullerenes: Properties, processing and applications. Noyes Publications, Park Ridge, N.J., 1993.

[79.] Dresselhaus M.S. and Dresselhaus G. Intercalation compounds of graphite. Adv. Phys., 2002, v. 1, no. 1, 1-186 (reprinted from Adv. Phys., 1981, v. 30(2), 139-326).

[80.] Pietronero L. and Tosatti E. Physics of intercalation compounds. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1981.

[81.] Zabel H. and Solin S.A. Graphite intercalation compounds I: Structure and dynamics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990.

[82.] Dresselhaus M.S. and Kalish R. Ion implantation in diamond, graphite and related materials. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1992.

[83.] Enoki T., Suzuki M. and Endo M. Graphite intercalation compounds and applications. Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K., 2003.

[84.] Martin W.H. and Brocklehurst J.E. The thermal expansion behavior of pyrolytic graphite-bromine residue compounds. Carbon, 1964, v. 1, no. 2, 133-141.

[85.] Hastings C.S. A theory of the constitution of the Sun, founded upon spectroscopic observations, original and other. Am. J. Science, 1881, v. 21, no. 121, 33-44.

[86.] Payne C.H. The relative abundances of the elements. Stellar Atmospheres. Harvard Observatory Monograph no. 1 (Harlow Shapley, Editor), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1925 (reprinted in part in Lang K.R. and Gingerich O. A source book in astronomy and astrophysics, 1900-1975, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1979, p. 245-248).

[87.] Russell H.N. On the composition of the Sun's atmosphere. Astrophys. J., 1929, v. 70, 11-82.

[88.] Wigner E. and Huntington H.B. On the possibility of a metallic modification of hydrogen. J. Chem. Phys., 1935, v. 3, 764-70.

[89.] Brovman E.G., Kagan Yu.M. and Kholas A. Properties of metallic hydrogen under pressure. Sov. Phys. JETP, 1972, v. 35, no. 4, 783-787.

[90.] Chakravarty S. and Ashcroft N.W. Ground state of metallic hydrogen. Phys. Rev. B, 1978, v. 18, 4588-4597.

[91.] Mon K.K., Chester G.V. and Ashcroft N.W. Simulation studies of a model of high-density metallic hydrogen. Phys. Rev. B, 1980, v. 21, 2641-2646.

[92.] McMahon J.M., Morales M.A., Pierleoni C. and Ceperley D.M. The properties of hydrogen and helium under extreme conditions. Rev. Mod. Phys., 2012, v. 84, no. 4, 1607-1653.

[93.] Hubbard W.B., Guillot T., Lunime J.I., Burrows A., Saumon D., Marley M.S., Freedman R.S. Liquid metallic hydrogen and the structure of brown dwarfts and giant planets. Phys. Plasmas, 1997, v. 4, no. 5, 2011-2015 (also arXiv:astro-ph/9703007v1).

[94.] Nellis W.J., Ross M. and Holmes N.C. Temperature measurements of shock-compressed hydrogen: Implications for the interior of Jupiter. Science, 1995, v. 269, no. 5228, 1249-1252.

[95.] Nellis W.J., Weir S.T. and Mitchell A.C. Metallization and electrical conductivity of hydrogen in Jupiter. Science, 1996, v. 273, no. 5277, 936-938.

[96.] Lai D. and Salpeter E.E. Hydrogen phases on the surfaces of a strongly magnetized neutron star. Astrophys. J., 1997, v. 491, 270-285.

[97.] Ichimaru S. Statistical Plasma Physics--Volume II: Condensed Plasmas, Addison-Westly, Redwood, CA, 1991 (reprinted by Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 2004).

[98.] Ichimaru S. and Kitamura H. Pycnonuclear reactions in dense astrophysical and fusion plasmas. Phys. Plasmas, 1999, v. 6, no. 7, 26492671.

[99.] Ichimaru S. Radiative proton-capture of high-Z nuclei in the sun and in liquid-metallic hydrogen. Phys. Let. A, 2000, v. 266, 167-172.

[100.] Scharmer G. B., Gudiksen B.V., Kiselman D., Lofdahl M.G., Rouppe van der Voort L.H.M. Dark cores in sunspot penumbral filaments. Nature, 2002, v. 420, 151-153.

[101.] Very F. The absorptive power of the solar atmosphere. Astrophys. J., 1902, v. 16, 73-91.

[102.] Schwarzschild K. Uber das Gleichgewicht der Sonnenamospare. Nachrichten von der Koniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottigen, Gottinger Nachrichten, 1906, v. 195, 41-53 (English translation: Concerning the equilibrium of the solar atmosphere, found in: Menzel D.H. Selected Papers on the Transfer of Radiation: 6 papers by Arthur Schuster, K. Schwarzschild, A.S. Eddington, S. Rosseland, E.A. Milne. Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1966, p. 25-34 and Meadows A.J. Early Solar Physics. Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1970, 277-290).

[103.] Milne E.A. Radiative equilibrium in the outer layers of a star: The temperature distribution and the law of darkening. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 1921, v.81, 361-375.

[104.] National Solar Observatory. Advanced Technology Solar Telescope--ATST. http://atst.nso.edvj/sites/atst.nso.edu/files/press/ATST_book.pdf (accessed online on 9/10/2013).

[105.] Galilei G. and Scheiner C. On sunspots (translated by Eileen Reeves and Albert Van Helden), The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 2010.

[106.] Wilson A. Observations on the solar spots. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., 1774, v. 64, 1-30.

[107.] Hale G.E. On the probable existence of a magnetic field in Sun-spots. Astrophys. J., 1908, v. 28, 315-343.

[108.] Leonard T. and Choudhary D.P. Intensity and magnetic field distribution of sunspots. Solar Physics, 2008, v. 252, 33-41.

[109.] Martinez Pillet V. and Vazquez M. The continuum intensity-magnetic field relation in sunspot umbrae. Astron. Astrophys., 1993, v. 270, 494-508.

[110.] Thomas J.H. and Weiss N.O. Sunspots and starspots. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 2008.

[111.] Sobotka M. Fine structure in sunspots. In, Motions in the solar atmosphere (A. Hanslmeier and M. Messerotti, eds.), Astrophysics and Space Science Library, v./,239, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1999, p. 71-97.

[112.] Langley S. Sur la temperature des diverses regions du soleil. Les noyaux noirs des taches. Comptes Rendus, 1875, v. 80, 746-749.

[113.] Frost E.B. Observations on the thermal absorption in the solar atmosphere made at Potsdam. Astronnomische Nachrichten, 1892, v. 130(3105-3106), 129-146.

[114.] Tandberg-Hanssen E. Solar Activity. Blaisdell Publishing Co., Waltham, M.A., 1967.

[115.] Bhatnagar A. Instrumentation and observational techniques in solar astronomy. In, Lectures on Solar Physics (H.M. Antia, A. Bhatnagar and R. Ulmschneider, Eds.), Springer, Berlin, 2003, p. 27-79.

[116.] Moradi H. and Cally P.S. Time-distance modeling in a simulated sunspot. Solar Physics, 2008, v. 251, 309-327.

[117.] Ilonidis S. and Zhao J. Determining absorption, emissivity reduction, and local suppression coeffcients inside sunspots. Solar Physics, 2011, v. 268, 377-388.

[118.] Bray R.J., Loughhead R.E., Durrant C.J. The solar granulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1984.

[119.] Muller R. The solar granulation. In, Motions in the solar atmosphere (A. Hanslmeier and M. Messerotti, eds.), Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Kluwer Academic Publishers Dordrecht, 1999, v. 239, 35-70

[120.] Hirzberger J. Granulation and waves. Astron. Nachr., 2003, v. 324, no. 4, 344-348.

[121.] Roudier Th. and Muller R. Structure of the solar granulation. Solar Physics, 1986, v. 107, 11-26.

[122.] Hirzberger J. On the brightness and velocity structure of solar granulation. Astron. Astrophys., 2002, v. 392, 1105-1118.

[123.] Weaire D. and Rivier N. Soap, cells and statistics random patterns in two dimensions. Contemp. Phys., 1984, v. 25, 59-99.

[124.] Rivier N. Structure of random cellular networks. Science on Form: Proc. First Int. Symp. Sci. Form, KTK Scientific Publishers, Tokyo, 1986, 451-458.

[125.] Chiu S.N. Aboav-Weaire's and Lewis' Law A review. Mater. Charact., 1995, v. 34, 149-165.

[126.] Noever D.A. Solar granulation and statistical crystallography: a modeling approach using size-shape relations. Astron. Astrophys., 1994, v. 282, 252-261.

[127.] Chacornac, On the physical constitution of the Sun. (25/12/1864). The Reader, 1865, v.5, 16-17.

[128.] Rast M.P. On the nature of "exploding" granules and granule fragmentation. Astrophys. J., 1995, v. 443, 863-868.

[129.] Hale G.E. The study of stellar evolution: An account of some recent methods of astrophysical research, The decennial publications of the University of Chicago--Second Series, Vol. X. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1908.

[130.] de la Rue W., Stewart B. and Loewy B. Researches on solar physics --Series II: On the behaviour of sun-spots with regard to increase and diminution (abstract). Proc. Roy. Soc. London, 1865, v. 14, 59-63.

[131.] Wang H., Deng N. and Liu C. Rapid transition of uncombed penumbrae to faculae during large flares. Astrophys. J., 2012, v. 748, no. 2, 76(9 pp).

[132.] Chapman G.A. Facular line profiles and facular models. Astrophys. J. Supp. Ser., 1977, v. 33, 35-54.

[133.] Tarbell T.D. and Title A.M. Measurements of magnetic fluxes and field strengths in the photospheric network. Solar Physics, 1977, v. 52, 1325.

[134.] Ortiz A., Solanki S.K., Domingo V., Fligge M. and Sanahuja B. On the intensity contrast of solar photospheric faculae and network elements. Astron. &Astrophys., 2002, v. 388, 1036-1047.

[135.] Libbrecht K.G. and Kuhn J.R. On the facular contrast near the solar limb. Astrophys. J., 1985, v. 299, 1047-1050.

[136.] Spruit H.C. Pressure equilibrium and energy balance of small photospheric fluxtubes. Solar Physics, 1976, v. 50, 269-295.

[137.] Walton S.R. Flux tube models of solar plages. Astrophys. J., 1987, v. 312, 909-929.

[138.] Bonet J.A., Cabello I. and Almeida S. Center-to-limb variation of the area covered by magnetic bright points in the quiet Sun. Astron. & Astrophys., 2012, v. 539, A6.

[139.] Sanchez Almeida J., Bonet J.A., Viticchie B. and Del Moro D. Magnetic bright points in the quiet Sun. Astrophys. J. Letters, 2010, v. 715, no. 1, L26-L29.

[140.] Evershed J. Wave-length determinations and general results obtained from a detailed examination of spectra photographed at the solar eclipse of January 22, 1898. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, 1901, v. 197, 381413.

[141.] Evershed J. Preliminary report of the expedition to the south limit of totality to obtain photographs of the flash spectrum in high solar latitudes. Proc. Roy. Soc. London, 1900, v. 67, 370-385.

[142.] Menzel D.H. and Cillie G.G. Hydrogen emission in the chromosphere. Astrophys. J., 1937, v. 5, 88-106.

[143.] Athay R.G., Billings D.E., Evans J.W. and Roberts W.O. Emission in hydrogen Balmer lines and continuum in flash spectrum of 1952 total solar eclipse at Karthoum, Sudan. Astrophys. J., 1954, v. 120, 94-111.

[144.] Athay R.G., Menzel D.H., Pecker J.C. and Thomas R.N. The thermo dynamic state of the outer solar atmosphere V. A model of the chromosphere from the continuous emission. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser., 1955, v. 1, 505-519.

[145.] Hiei E. Continuous spectrum in the chromosphere. Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan, 1963, v. 15, 277-300.

[146.] Weart S.R. and Faller J.E. Photoelectric eclipse observation of the continuum at the extreme solar limb. Astrophys. J., 1969, v. 157, 887-901.

[147.] Gingerich O. and de Jager C. The Bilderberg model of the photosphere and low chromosphere. SolarPhys., 1968, v. 3, 5-25.

[148.] Ulmschneider P. The physics of the chromospheres and coronae. In, Lectures on Solar Physics (H.M. Antia, A. Bhatnagar and R. Ulmschneider, Eds.), Springer, Berlin, 2003, p. 232-280.

[149.] NASA. Air properties definitions. (Accessed online on 2/13/2013) www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/airprop.html www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/airprop.html (accessed online on 9/10/2013).

[150.] Bray R.J. and Loughhead R.E. The Solar Chromosphere, Chapman and Hall, London, U.K., 1974.

[151.] Dick S. Sky and Ocean Joined: The U.S. Naval Observatory 18302000. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003, p. 196-205.

[152.] Evershed J. Wave-length determinations and general results obtained from a detailed examination of spectra photographed at the solar eclipse of January 22, 1898. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, 1901, v. 197, 381-413.

[153.] Grotian W. Uber die intensitatsverteilung des kontinuierlichen spektrums der inneren korona. Zeitschrift fur Astrophysik, 1931, v. 3, 199226.

[154.] Lyot B. La couronne solaire etudiee en dehors des eclipses. Comptes Rendus, 1930, v. 191, 834-837.

[155.] Lyot B. A study of the solar corona and prominences without eclipses --George Darwin Lecture. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 1939, 580=594 (22 pages with plates).

[156.] Allen C.W. The spectrum of the corona at the eclipse of 1940 October 1. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 1946, v. 106, 137-150.

[157.] Dwivedi B.N. The solar corona. In, Lectures on Solar Physics (H.M. Antia, A. Bhatnagar and R. Ulmschneider, Eds.), Springer, Berlin, 2003, p. 281-298.

[158.] van de Hulst H.C. The electron density of the corona. Bull. Astronom. Inst. Netherlands, 1950, v. 11, no. 410., 135-149.

[159.] Carrington R.C. Description of a singular appearance seen in the Sun on September 1, 1859. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 1859, v. 20, 13-15.

[160.] Machado M.E., Emslie A.G., Avrett E.H. Radiative backwarming in white-light flares. Solar Phys., 1989, v. 124, 303-317.

[161.] Hiei E. A continuous spectrum of a white-light flare. SolarPhys., 1982, v. 80, 113-127.

[162.] Wang H. Study of white-light flares observed by Hinode. Res. Astron. Astrophys., 2009, v. 9, no. 2, 127-132.

[163.] Tandberg-Hanssen E. Solar prominences--An intriguing phenomenon. Solar Phys., 2011, v. 269, 237-251.

[164.] Tandberg-Hanssen E. A spectroscopic study of quiescent prominences. Astrophysica Novegica, 1964, v. 9, no. 3, 13-32.

[165.] Yakovkin N.A. and Zeldina M.Yu. The prominence radiation theory. SolarPhys., 1975, v. 45, 319-338.

[166.] Gopalswamy N. and Hanaoka Y. Coronal dimming associated with a giant prominence eruption. Astrophys. J. Lett., 1998, v. 498, L179 L182.

[167.] Gopalswamy N., Shimojo M., Lu W., Yashiro S., Shibasaki K. and Howard R.A. Prominence eruptions and coronal mass ejections: A statistical study using microwave observations. Astrophys. J., 2003, v. 586, 562-578.

[168.] Sheeley N.R., Walters J.H., Wang Y.M. and Howard R.A. Continuous tracking of coronal outflows: Two kinds of coronal mass ejections. J. Geophys. Res., 1999, v. 104, no. A11, 24739-24767.

[169.] St. Cyr O.C., Howard R.A., Sheeley N.R., Plunkett S.P., Michels D.J., Paswaters S.E., Koomen M.J., Simnett G.M., Thompson B.J., Gurman J.B., Schwenn R., Webb D.F., Hildner E. and Lamy P.L. Properties of coronal mass ejections: SOHO LASCO observations from January 1996 to June 1998. J. Geophys. Res., 2000, v. 105, no. A8, 18169-18185.

[170.] Hudson H.S. and Cliver E.W. Observing coronal mass ejections without coronagraphs. J. Geophys. Res., 2001, v. 106, no. A11, 25199-25213.

[171.] Yashiro S., Gopalswamy N. Michaelek G, St. Cyr O.C., Plunkett S.P., Rich N.B. and Howard R.A. A catalog of white-light coronal mass ejections observed by the SOHO spacecraft. J. Geophys. Res., 2004, v. 109, A07105(11 pages).

[172.] Wang Y.M. Nonradial coronal streamers. Astrophys. J., 1996, v. 456, L119-L121.

[173.] Wang Y.M., Sheeley N.R., Walters J.H., Brueckner G.E., Howard R.A., Michels D.J., Lamy P.L., Schwenn R. and Simnett G.M. Origin of streamer material in the outer corona. Astrophys. J., 1998, v. 498, L165 L168.

[174.] Vourlidas A. A review of white-light streamers at the end of cycle 23. Proc. IAU: Solar Activity and its Magnetic Origin, 2006, v. 233, 197204.

[175.] Del Zanna G., Bromage B.J.I. and Mason H.E. Spectroscopic characteristics of polar plumes. Astron. Astrophys., 2003, v. 398, 743-763.

[176.] Mouschovias T.Ch. and Poland A.I. Expansion and broadening of coronal loop transients: A theoretical explanation. Astrophys. J., 1978, v. 220, 675-682.

[177.] Kjeldseth-Moe O. and Brekke P. Time variability of active region loops observed with the coronal diagnostic spectrometer (CDS) on SOHO. SolarPhys., 1998, v. 182, 73-95.

[178.] Landi E., Miralles M.P., Curdt W. and Hara H. Physical properties of cooling plasma in quiescent active region loops. Astrophys. J., 2009, v. 695, 221-237.

[179.] Ambstha A. The active and explosive Sun. In, Lectures on Solar Physics (H.M. Antia, A. Bhatnagar and R. Ulmschneider, Eds.), Springer, Berlin, 2003, p. 127-172.

[180.] Kahler S.W. Solar flares and coronal mass ejections. Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 1992, v. 30, 113-141.

[181.] Priest E.R. Solar flare theory and the status of flare understanding. In High Energy Solar Physics: Anticipating HESSI. ASP Conf. Ser., 2000, v. 206, 13-26.

[182.] Priest E.R. and Forbes T.G. The magnetic nature of solar flares. Astron. Astrophys. Rev., 2002, v. 10, 313-377.

[183.] Hudson H.S. Global properties of solar flares. Space Sci. Rev., 2011, v. 158, 5-41.

[184.] Holman G.D. The mysterious origin of solar flares. Sci. Am., 2006, v. 294, no. 4, 38-45.

[185.] Forbes T.G. Magnetic reconnection in solar flares. Geophys. Astrophys. FluidDynam., 1991, v. 62, 15-36.

[186.] Ramaty R., Mandzhavidze N., Kozlovsky B. and Murphy R.J. Solar atmospheric abundances and energy content in flare-accelerated ions from gamma-ray spectroscopy. Astrophys. J., 1995, v. 455, L193-L196.

[187.] Watanabe K., Krucker S., Hudson H., Shimizu T., Masuda S., and Ichimoto K. G-band and hard X-ray emissions of the 2006 December 14 flares observed by HINODE/SOT and RHESSI. Astrophys. J., 2010, v. 715, 651-655.

[188.] Anderson J.L. Hinode discovers origin of white-light flares. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. Accessed online on 4/17/2013: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/news/releases/2010/10 052.html

[189.] Zollner F. On the temperature and physical constitution of the Sun. Phil. Mag. 4th Series, 1870, v. 40, 313-327 (essentially reprinted in: Zollner F. On the Sun's temperature and physical constitution. Nature, 1870, v. 2(52), 522-526).

[190.] Kirchhoff G. Researches on the Solar Spectrum, and the Spectra of the Chemical Elements (Translated by H.E. Roscoe), Macmillan and Co., Cambridge, U.K., 1862.

[191.] Kirchhoff G. and Bunsen R. Chemical analysis by spectral observations. (Reprinted from Poggendorf's Annalen der Physik, 1860, v. 110, In, The laws of Radiation and Absorption--Memoirs by Prevost, Stewart, Kirchhoff, and Kirchhoff and Bunsen. (D.B. Brace, Ed.), American Book Company, N.Y., 1901, p. 99-126).

[192.] Phillips K.J.H., Feldman U. and Landi E. Ultraviolet and X-Ray Spectroscopy of the Solar Atmosphere: Cambridge Astrophysics Series--Vol. 44, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 2008.

[193.] Zirin H. The mystery of the chromosphere. Solar Phys., 1996, v. 169, 313-326.

[194.] Rieger E. Solar flares: High-energy radiation and particles. Solar Phys., 1989, v. 121,323-345.

[195.] Ramaty R. and Simnett G.M. Accelerated particles in solar flares. In, The Sun in Time (C.P. Sonett, M.S. Giampapa and M.S. Matthews, Eds.), The University of Arizona Press, Tuscon, AZ, 1991, p. 232-259.

[196.] Grevesse N. Solar abundances of lithium, beryllium, and boron. Solar Phys., 1968, v.5, 159-180.

[197.] Wiens R.C., Bochsler P., Burnett D.S. and Wimmer-Schweingruber R.F. Solar and solar-wind isotopic compositions. Earth Plan. Sci. Let., 2004, v. 222, 697-712.

[198.] Uitenbroek H. The effect of photospheric granulation on the determination of the lithium abundance in solar-type stars. Astrophys. J., 1998, v. 498, 427-440.

[199.] Schatzman E. Turbulent transport and lithium destruction in main sequence stars. Astron. Astrophys., 1977, v. 56, 211-218.

[200.] Pinsonneault M.H. Rotational mixing and lithium depletion. In, Light Elements in the Universe: Proc. IAU Symposium, 2009, v. 268, 375-380.

[201.] Pinsonneault M.H. A fossil record for exoplanets. Nature, 2009, v. 462, no. 7270, 168-169.

[202.] Israelian G., Delgado Mena E., Santos N.C., Sousa S.G., Mayor M., Udry S., Dominguez Cerdena C., Rebolo R. and Randich S. Enhanced lithium depletion in Sun-like stars with orbiting planets. Nature, 2009, v. 462, no. 7270, 189-191.

[203.] Baumann P., Ramirez I., Melendez J., Aslund M. and Lind K. Lithium depletion in solar-like stars: no planet connection. Astron. Astrophys., 2010, v. 519, A87(11 pages).

[204.] Zurek E., Hoffmann R., Ashcroft N.W., Oganov A.R., Lyakhov A.O. A little bit of lithium does a lot for hydrogen. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA USA, 2009, v. 106, no. 42, 17640-17643.

[205.] Menzel D.H. A Study of the Solar Chromosphere. Publications of the Lick Observatory, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, v. 17, 1931.

[206.] Athay R.G. The Solar Chromosphere and Corona: Quiet Sun. D. Reidel Publishing Co., Boston, M.A., 1976.

[207.] Thomas R.N. and Athay R.G. Physics of the Solar Chromosphere. Interscience Publishers, New York, N.Y., 1961.

[208.] Heinzel P. Understanding the solar chromosphere. In, "Exploring the Solar System and the Universe", (V. Mioc, C. Dumitrache, N.A. Popescu, Eds.), American Institute of Physics, 2008, 238-244.

[209.] Woltjer L. A photometric investigation of the spicules and the structure of the chromosphere. Bull. Astron. Inst. Netherlands, 1954, v. 12, no. 454, 165-176.

[210.] Rush J.H. and Roberts W.O. Recent studies of chromospheric spicules. Australian J. Phys., 1954, v. 7, 230-243.

[211.] Beckers J.M. Solar spicules. Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 1972, v. 10, 73-100.

[212.] Lorrain P. and Koutchmy S. Two dynamical models for solar spicules. SolarPhys., 1996, v. 165, 115-137.

[213.] Sterling A. Solar spicules: A review of recent models and targets for future observations. Solar Phys., 2000, v. 196, 79-111.

[214.] Zaqarashvili T.V. and Erdelyi R. Oscillations and waves in solar spicules. Space Sci. Rev., 2009, v. 149, 355-388.

[215.] Pasachoff J.M., Jacobson W.A. and Sterling A.C. Limb spicules from ground and from space. Solar Phys., 2009, v. 260, 59-82.

[216.] Konig L., Rabin I, Schultze W. and Ertl G. Chemiluminescence in the agglomeration of metal clusters. Science, 1996, v. 274, no. 5291, 1353-1355.

[217.] Jordan C., Bueckner G.E., Bartoe J.D.F., Sandlin G.D. and Vanhoosier M.E. Emission lines of H2 in the extreme-ultraviolet solar spectrum. Astrophys. J., 1978, v. 226, 687-697.

[218.] Bartoe J.D.F., Brueckner G.E., Nicolas K.R., Sandlin G.D., Vanhoosier M.E. and Jordan C. H2 emission in the solar atmosphere. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 1979, v. 187, 463-471.

[219.] Sandlin G.D., Bartoe J.D.F., Brueckner G.E., Tousey R. and Vanhoosier M.E. The high-resolution solar spectrum, 1175-1770[Angstrom]. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser., 1986, v. 61, 801-898.

[220.] Innes D.E. SUMER-Hinode observations of microflares: excitation of molecular hydrogen. Astron. Astrophys., 2008, v. 481, no. 1, L41-L44.

[221.] Przybilla N. and Butler K. The solar hydrogen spectrum in non-local thermodynamic equilibrium. Astrophys. J., 2004, v. 610, L61-L64.

[222.] Kurucz R. ATLAS9 Stellar Atmosphere Programs and 2 km/s grid--CD-ROM No. 13, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, 1993.

[223.] Stehle C. and Hutcheon R. Extensive tabulations of Stark broadened hydrogen line profiles. Astro. & Astrophys. Suppl. Ser., 1999, v. 140, 93-97.

[224.] Konjevic N., Lesage A., Fuhr J.R. and Wiese W.L. Experimental Stark widths and shifts for spectral lines of neutral and ionized atoms (A critical review of selected data for the period 1989 through 2000). J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data, 2002, v. 31, no. 3, 819-927.

[225.] Stehle C. Stark broadening of hydrogen Lyman and Balmer lines in the conditions of stellar envelopes. Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. Series, 1994, v. 104, 509-527.

[226.] Stehle C. and Jacquemot S. Line shapes in hydrogen opacities. Astron. Astrophys., 1993, v. 271, 348-359.

[227.] Acon B.W., Stehle C., Zhang H. and Montaser A. Stark-broadened hydrogen line profiles predicted by the model microfield method for calculating electron densities. Spectrochimica Acta B: Atomic Spectros., 2001, v. 56, 527-539.

[228.] Mijatovic Z., Konjevic N., Ivkovic M. and Kobilarov R. Influence of ion dynamics on the width and shift of isolated He I lines in plasmas--II. Phys. Rev. E, 1995, v. 51, no. 5, 4891-4896.

[229.] Cairns I.H., Lobzin V.V., Warmuth A., Li B., Robinson P.A., and Mann G. Direct radio probing and interpretation of the Sun's plasma density profile. Astrophys. J. Letters, 2009, v. 706, L265-L269.

[230.] Wohl H. On molecules in sunspots. Solar Phys., 1971, v. 16, 362-372.

[231.] Sinha K. Molecules in the Sun. Proc. Astron. Soc. Australia, 1991, v. 9, 32-36.

[232.] Olmsted C.M. Sun-spot bands which appear in the spectrum of a calcium arc burning in the presence of hydrogen. Astrophys. J., 1908, v. 27, 66-69.

[233.] Ionization Potentials. --Accessed on 10/5/2013. http://www.physics. ohio-state.edu/~lvw/handyinfo/ips.html.

[234.] Athay R.G. Line broadening in chromospheric spicules. Astrophys. J., 1961, v. 134,756-765.

[235.] Zirker J.B. The solar H and K lines of ionized calcium. Solar Phys., 1968, v. 3, 164-180.

[236.] Gulyaev R.A. and Livshits M.A. Width of Ca+ H line in spicules. Soviet Astron., 1966, v. 9, no. 4, 661-663.

[237.] Janssen J. Indications de quelques-uns des resultats obtenus a Guntoor, pendant l'eclipse du mois d'aout dernier. Comptes Rendus, 1868, v. 67, 838-39.

[238.] Lockyer J.N. Notice of an observation of the spectrum of a solar prominence. Proc. Roy. Soc. London, 1868, v. 17, 91-92.

[239.] Kragh H. The solar element: A reconsideration of helium's early history. Ann. Science, 2009, v. 66, no. 2, 157-182.

[240.] Taylor R.J. The helium problem. Quart. J. Roy. Astron. Soc., 1967, v. 8, 313-333.

[241.] Grevesse N. and Sauval A.J. Standard solar composition. Space Science Reviews, 1998, v.85, 161-174.

[242.] Asplund M., Grevesse N., Sauval A.J. and Scott P. The chemical composition of the Sun. Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 2009, v. 47, 481-522.

[243.] Auchere F., Boulade S., Koutchmy S, Smartt R.N., Delaboudiniere J.P., Georgakilas A., Gurman J.B. and Artzner G.E. The prolate solar chromosphere. Astron. & Astrophys., 1998, v. 336, L57-L60.

[244.] Marchenko G.P., Akimov L.A., Belkina I.L. and Velikodsky Y.I. Solar chromosphere in the D3 helium line from spectra of the eclipse of March 29, 2006. Kinematics Phys. Celestial Bodies, 2011, v. 27, no. 4, 183-190.

[245.] Zirin H. The Solar Atmosphere. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 1998.

[246.] Centeno R., Bueno J.T., Uitenbroek H. and Collados M. The influence of coronal EUV irradiance on the emission in the HeI 10830[Angstrom] and D3 multiplets. Astrophys. J., 2008, v. 677, 742-750.

[247.] Grandinetti F. Helium chemistry: A survey of the role of the ionic species. Inter. J. Mass Spectrom., 2004, v. 237, 243-267.

[248.] Hogness T.R. and Lunn E.G. The ionization of hydrogen by electron impact as interpreted by positive ray analysis. Phys. Rev., 1925, v. 26, 44-55.

[249.] Tolliver D.E., Kyrala G.A and Wing W. H. Observation of the infrared spectrum of helium-hydride molecular ion 4 HeH+. Phys. Rev. Let., 1979, v. 43, no. 23, 1719-1722.

[250.] Crofton M.W., Altman R.S., Haese N.N. and Oka T. Infrared spectra of 4He[H.sup.+], 4He[D.sup.+], 3He[H.sup.+], and 3He[D.sup.+]. J. Chem. Phys., 1989, v. 91, 5882-5886.

[251.] Roberge W. and Dalgarno A. The formation and destruction of He[H.sup.+] in astrophysical plasmas. Astrophys. J., 1982, v. 255, 489-496.

[252.] Engel E.A., Doss N., Harris G.J. and Tennyson J. Calculated spectra for He[H.sup.+] and its effect on the opacity of cool metal-poor stars. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 2005, v. 357, 471-477.

[253.] Galli D. and Palla F. The chemistry of the early universe. Astron. Astrophys., 1998, v. 335, 403-420.

[254.] Ketterle W., Figger H. and Walther H. Emission spectra of bound helium hydride. Phys. Rev. Lett., 1985, v. 55, no. 27, 2941-2944.

[255.] www.nobelprize.org/nobel prizes/physics/laureates/2001/ketterle.html

[256.] Ketterle W., Figger H. and Walther H. Emission spectra of bound helium hydride. Phys. Rev. Lett, 1985, v. 55, 2941-2944.

[257.] Ketterle W., Dodhy A. and Walther H. Bound-free emission of the helium hydride molecule. Chem. Phys. Let., 1986, v. 129, no. 1, 76-78.

[258.] Wollaston W.H. A method of examining refractive and dispersive powers, by prismatic reflection. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, 1802, v. 92, 365-380.

[259.] Fraunhofer J. Bestimmung des Brechungs-und des Farbenzerstreuungs-Vermogens verschiedener Glasarten, in Bezug auf die Vervollkommnung achromatischer Fernrohre. Denkschriften der Koniglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Muunchen, 1814/1815, v. 5, 193-226.

[260.] Unsold A. Uber die Struktur der Fraunhofersehen Linien und die quantitative Spektralanalyse der Sonnenatmosphare. Zeitschrift fur Physik, 1928, v. 46, no. 11-12, 765-781.

[261.] Kuli-Zade D.M. Profiles of the stronger Fraunhofer lines in the solar spectrum. I. Hydrogen lines. Sov. Astron., 1965, v. 8, no. 5, 736-743.

[262.] Bondal K.R. and Gaur V.P. On some visible and infrared atomic hydrogen lines in three photospheric models. Bull. Astron. Soc. India, 1986, v. 14, 73-78.

[263.] de Jager C., Migeotte M. and Neven L. The profile of the Brackett alpha line in the solar spectrum. Ann. Astrophys., 1956, v. 19, 9-18.

[264.] Cowley C.R. and Castelli F. Some aspects of the calculation of Balmer lines in the Sun and stars. Astron. & Astrophys., 2002, v. 387, 595-604.

[265.] Hufbauer K. Exploring the Sun: Solar Science since Galileo. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1991, p. 112-114.

[266.] Claridge G.C. Coronium. J. Roy. Astron. Soc. Canada, 1937, v. 31, no. 8, 337-346.

[267.] Unsigned. Origin of the coronium lines. Nature, 1942, v. 150, no. 3817, 756-759.

[268.] Milne A.E. Presidential Address--Award of the Gold Medal to Professor Bengt Edlen. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 1945, v. 105, 138-145.

[269.] Wood B.E., Karovska M., Cook J.W., Brueckner G.E., Howard R.A., Korendyke C.M. and Socker D.G. Search for brightness variations in FeXIV coronagraph observations of the quiescent solar corona. Astrophys. J., 1998, v. 505, 432-442.

[270.] Habbal S.R., Druckmiiller M., Morgan H., Daw A., Johnson J., Ding A., Arndt M., Esser R., Rusin V. and Scholl I. Mapping the distribution of electron temperature and Fe charge states in the corona with total solar eclipse observations. Astrophys. J., 2010, v. 708, 1650-1662.

[271.] Habbal S.R., Druckmuller M., Morgan H., Scholl I., Rusin V., Daw A., Johnson J. and Arndt M. Total solar eclipse observations of hot prominence shrouds. Astrophys. J., 2010, v. 719, 1362-1369.

[272.] Habbal S.R., Morgan H. and Druckmuller M. A new view of coronal structures: Implications for the source and acceleration of the solar wind--First Asia-Pacific Solar Physics Meeting. ASIConf. Ser., 2011, v. 2, 259-269.

[273.] Priest E.R. Solar flare theory and the status of flare understanding. High Energy Solar Physics: Anticipating HESSI (R. Ramaty and N. Mandzhavidze, Eds.), ASP Conf. Ser., 2000, v. 206, 13-26.

[274.] Rakov V.A. and Uman M.A. Lightning: Physics and Effects. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 2003.

[275.] Uman M.A. Lightning. Dover Publicatons. New York, N.Y., 1984.

[276.] Uman M.A. The Lightning Discharge (International Geophysics Series --Vol. 39), Academic Press, Inc., New York, N.Y., 1987.

[277.] Bhatnagar A. and Livingston W. Fundamentals of Solar Astronomy (World Scientific Series in Astronomy and Astrophysics--Vol. 6), World Scientific, New Jersey, 2005.

[278.] Jeans J.H. The Universe Around Us. 1st Edition, Cambridge University Press, 1933.

[279.] NASA. Factsheets. (Accessed online on 9/14/13) http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/jupiterfact.html http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/saturnfact.html http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/neptunefact.html http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/uranusfact.html

[280.] Faye H. Sur la constitution physique du Soleil. Les Mondes, 1865, v. 7, 293-306 (translated into English by Patrice Robitaille: On the physical constitution of the Sun--Part I. Progr. Phys., 2011, v. 3, 35-40.

[281.] Emilio M., Kuhn J.R., Bush R.I, and Scholl I.F. Measuring the solar radius from space during the 2003 and 2006 Mercury transits. Astrophys. J, 2012, v. 750, 135(8 pages).

[282.] Chapman G.A., Dobias J.J., and Walton S.R. On the variability of the apparent solar radius. Astrophys J, 2008, v. 681, no. 2, 1698-1702.

[283.] Rozelot J.P. and Damiani C. Rights and wrongs of the temporal solar radius variability. Eur. Physical J. H, 2012, v. 37, no. 5, 709-743.

[284.] Chandrasekhar S. Ellipsoidal Figures of Equilibrium. Yale Univerity Press, New Haven, 1969.

[285.] Domiciano de Souza A., Kervella P., Jankov S., Abe L., Vakili F., di Folco E. and Paresce F. The spinning-top Be star Achernar from VLTI VINCI. Astron. & Astrophys., 2003, v. 407, L47-L50.

[286.] Carciofi A.C., Domiciano de Souza A., Magalhaes A.M., Bjorkman J.E. and Vakili F. On the Determination of the Rotational Oblateness of Achernar. Astrophys. J., v. 676, no. 1, L41-L44.

[287.] Godier S and Rozelot J.P. The solar oblateness and its relationship with the structure of the tacholine and the Sun's subsurface. Astron. & Astrophys., 2000, v. 355, 365-374.

[288.] Gough D. How oblate is the Sun? Science, 2012, v. 337, 1611-1612.

[289.] Kuhn J.R., Bush R., Emilio M. and Scholi I.F. The precise solar shape and its variability. Science, 2012, v. 337, 1638-1640.

[290.] Rozelot J.P., Damiani C. and Lefebvre S. Variability of the solar shape (before space dedicated missions). J. Atmospher. Solar-Terrestrial Phys., 2009, v. 71, 1683-1694.

[291.] Roberts A.M. Solar faculae stand exposed. Sky & Telescope, 2003, v. 106, no. 4, 26.

[292.] Scharmer G.B., Henriques V.M.J., Kiselman D. and de la Cruz Rodriguez. Detection of convective downflows in a sunspot umbra. Science, 2011, v. 333, no. 6040, 316-319.

[293.] AAAS. AAAS News Release--"SCIENCE: Pinpointing the Nature of Filaments in Sunspots." www.aaas.org, 7 Sept 2011

[294.] Thomas J.H. Solar physics: The Sun under a microscope. Nature, 2002, v. 420, 134-135.

[295.] Cranmer S.R. Coronal holes. In, Encyclopedia of Astronomy and Astrophysics, (Paul Murdin, Ed.), Institute of Physics Publishing, Bristol, 2001, v. 1, p. 496-501.

[296.] Cranmer S.R. Coronal holes. Living Rev. Solar Phys., 2009, v. 6, 3-66.

[297.] Chitre S.M. Overview of solar physics. In, Lectures on Solar Physics (H.M. Antia, A. Bhatnagar and R. Ulmschneider, Eds.), Springer, Berlin, 2003, p. 1-26.

[298.] Lewis D.J., Simnett G.M., Brueckner G.E., Howard R.A., Lamy P.L. and Schwenn R. LASCO observations of the coronal rotation. Solar Phys., 1999, v. 184, no. 2, 297-315.

[299.] Shevick E. Science Action Labs: Astronomy (Illustrated by Rojas M.G.), Teaching & Learning Company, Dayton, OH, 2002.

[300.] Moore P. and Watson J. Observing the Solar System. In Astronomy with a Budget Telescope, Patrick Moore's Practical AstronomySeries, 2012, p. 31-64.

[301.] Jenkins J.L. The Sun, Yesterday and Today in The Sun and How to Observe it: Astronomers' Observing Guides, Springer, New York, 2009, p. 1-15.

[302.] University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. A closer look. Approved by Peter Fox Last revised: Mon Apr 10 15:08:11 MDT2000. http://www.ucar.edu/communications/lasers/sun/closer.html (accessed on 9/10/2013)

[303.] NASA, Release No. 67-124, Mariner E/Venus 67, 1967 p. 20. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/ 19670017987_1967017987.pdf (accessed on 9/10/2013)

[304.] Saarman E. Sun seeker, Stanford Report, May 10, 2006. http://news.stanford.edu/news/2006/may10/hoeksema-051006.html (accessed on 9/10/2013)

[305.] NASA, Astronomy Picture of the Day, January 10, 2000. http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap000110.html (accessed on 9/16/2013)

[306.] L.A. Times. New images show Sun is covered by wide mountains of hot gases. December 16, 1996. http://articles.latimes.com/1996-1219/local/me-10771_l_hot-gases (accessed on 9/10/2013)

[307.] Lang K. SOHO reveals the secrets of the Sun, Scientific Am., 1997, v. 276(3), p. 40(8 pages).

[308.] Ludwig G.H. Particles and fields in space research. Geophys. Astron. Space Exploration NASA SP-13, 1962, p.21-29.

[309.] Baker D.N. Critical issues in space plasma physics. Phys. Plasmas 1999, 6(5), 1700-1708.

[310.] Jordan S.D. The solar optical telescope (SOT), Space Science Rev., 1981, v. 29(4), 333-340.

[311.] Marhavilas P.K. The space as a natural laboratory of electrotechnics. J. Eng. Science Tech. Rev., 2008, v. 1, 9-18.

[312.] Verschuur G. The Radio Sun and Planets in The Invisible Universe: The StoryofRadio Astronomy, Springer, New York, 2007, p. 23-32.

[313.] Filipov B. and Koutchmy S. On the origin of the prolate solar chromosphere. SolarPhys., 2000, v.196, 311-320.

[314.] Benard H. Les tourbillons cellulaires dans une nappe liquide. Rev. Gen. Sci. PuresAppl., 1900, v. 11, 1261-1271; 1309-1328.

[315.] Benard H. Les toubillons cellulaires dans une nappe liquid transportant de la chaleur par convection en regime permanent. Ann. Chim.Phys., 1901, v. 23, 62-144.

[316.] Ozbelge H.O. On the surface structure and the hydrodynamics of the Benard Cells. Experiment. Fluids, 1989, v. 8, 238-240.

[317.] Cerisier P., Rahal S., Rivier N. Topological correlations in Benard-Marangoni convective structures. Phys. Rev. E., 1996, v. 54, no. 5, 5086-5094.

[318.] Thiele U. and Eckert K. Stochastic geometry of polygonal networks an alternative approach to the hexagon-square-transition in Benard convection. Phys. Rev. E, 1998, v. 58, 3458-3468

[319.] Charbonneau P. and Smolarkiewicz P.K. Modeling the Solar Dynamo. Science, 2013, v. 340, no. 6128, 42-43.

[320.] Tobias S.M. The Solar Dynamo. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. A, 2002, v. 360, no. 1801, 2741-2756.

[321.] Nornberg M.D., Spence E.J., Kendrick R.D., Jacobson C.M. and Forest C.B. Measurements of the magnetic field induced by a turbulent flow of liquid metal. Phys. Plasmas, 2006, v. 13, 055901(8 pages); also arXiv:physics/0510265v3 [physics.plasm-ph].

[322.] Nornberg M.D., Spence E.J., Kendrick R.D., Jacobson C.M. and Forest C.B. Intermittent Magnetic Field Excitation by a Turbulent Flow of Liquid Sodium. Phys. Rev. Let., 2006, v. 97, no. 4, 044503(4 pages).

[323.] Stieglitz R. and Muller U. Experimental demonstration of a homogeneous two-scale dynamo. Phys. Fluids, 2001, v. 13, no. 3, 561-564.

[324.] Gailitis A., Lielausis O., Dement'ev S., Platacis E., Cifersons A., Gerbeth G., Gundrum T., Stefani F., Christen M., Hanel H. and Will G. Detection of a Flow Induced Magnetic Field Eigenmode in the Riga Dynamo Facility. Phys. Rev. Let., 2000, v. 84, no. 19, 4365-4368.

[325.] Density of molten elements and representative salts. In, CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 2013-2014, CRC Press, Baca Raton, FL, p. 4-128.

[326.] Schecter D.A., Boyd J.F. and Gilman P.A. "Shallow-Water" Magneto-hydrodynamic Waves in the Solar Tachocline. Astrophys. J., v. 551, L185-L188.

[327.] Mohorics A., Planinssics G., Kos M., Duh A. and Stepissnik J. Magnetic Resonance Imaging System Based on Earth's Magnetic Field. Inst. Science Tech., 2004, v./, 32, no. 6, 655-667.

[328.] Lowes F.J. and Wilkinson I. Geomagnetic dynamo: A laboratory model. Nature, 1963, v. 198, no. 4886, 1158-1160.

[329.] Asinovskii E.I. and Markovets V.V. The limiting electric conductivity of plasma. Phys. Letters A, 2003, v. 319, 510-513.

[330.] De Groof A., Berghmans D., van Driel-Gesztelyi L. and Poedts S. Intensity variations in EIT shutterless mode: Waves or Flows? Astron. Astrophys., 2004, v. 415, no. 3, 1141-1151.

[331.] De Groof A., Bastiaensen C., Muller D.A.N., Berghmans D., and Poedts S. Detailed comparison of downflows seen both in EIT 30.4 nm and Big Bear H[alpha] movies. Astron. Astrophys., 2005, v. 443, no. 1, 319-328.

[332.] Muller D.A.N., De Groof A., Hansteen V.H. and Peter H. High-speed coronal rain. Astron. Astrophys., 2005, v. 436, no. 3, 1067-1074.

[333.] Antolin R., Vissers G. and van der Voort L.R. On-Disk coronal rain. SolarPhys., 2012, v. 280, no. 2, 457-474.

[334.] Antolin R. and van der Voort L.R. Observing the fine structure of loops through high-resolution spectroscopic observations of coronal rain with the CRISP instrument at the Swedish Solar Telescope. Astrophys. J., 2012, v. 745, no. 2, 152(21 pages).

[335.] Aschwanden M. Physics of the Solar Corona: An Introduction with Problems and Solutions. Springer in association with Praxis Publishing, Chichester, U.K., 2005.

[336.] Peter H., Bingert S., Klimchuk J.A., de Forest C., Cirtain J.W., Golub L., Winebarger A.R., Kobayashi K. and Korreck K.E. Structure of solar coronal loops: From miniature to large-scale. Astron. & Astrophys., 2013, v. 556, A104(12 pages).

[337.] Tsiropoula G., Tziotsious K., Kontogiannis I., Madjarska M.S., Doyle J.G. and Suematsu Y. Solar fine-scale structures I. Spicules and other small-scale, jet-like events at the chromospheric level: Observations and physical parameters. Space Sci. Rev., 2012, v. 169, 181-244.

[338.] De Pontieu B., McIntosh S.W., Hansteen V.H., Carlsson M., Schrijver C.J., Tarbell T.D., Title A.M., Shine R.A., Suematsu Y., Tsuneta S., Katsukawa Y., Ichimoto K., Shimizu T. and Nagata S. A tale of two spicules: The impact of spicules on the magnetic chromosphere. Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan, 2007, v. 59, 655-660.

[339.] Zhang Y.Z., Shirata K, Wang J.X., Mao X.J., Matsumoto T., Liu Y. and Su T.T. Revision of spicule classification. Astrophys. J., 2012, v. 750, 16(9 pages).

[340.] Moskowitz C. Gargantuan Sun explosion rocks astronomers. SPACE.com (created June 9, 2011 at 12:34 PM ET--accessed online on January 29, 2011).

[341.] NASA/SDO/Helioviewer.org [2011/06/07 04:00:00 to 11:00:00 UTC]. Observed well using 5 min frames SDO AIA 304. These events have been captured in video format and posted numerous times online: e.g. Newsflash Skywatch Media YouTube Channel; Phil Plait Bad AstronomyBlogon YouTube. (Accessed online on January 29, 2013).

[342.] Formisano V. and Moreno G. Helium and heavy ions in the solar winds. Revista del Nuovo Cimento, 1971, v. 1, no. 3, 365-422.

[343.] Robbins D.E., Hundhausen A.J. and Bame S.J. Helium in the solar-wind. J. Geophys. Res., 1970, v. 75, no. 7, 1178-1187.

[344.] Ogilvie K.W. and Hirshberg J. The solar cycle variation of the solar wind helium abundance. J. Geophys. Res., 1974, v. 79, no. 31, 4595-4602.

[345.] Bame S.J., Asbridge J.R., Feldman W.C. and Gosling J.T. Evidence for a structure-free state at high solar wind speeds. J. Geophys. Res., 1977, v.82, no. 10, 1487-1492.

[346.] Borrini G., Gosling J.T., Bame S.J., and Feldman W.C. Helium abundance enhancements in the solar wind. J. Geophys. Res., 1982, v. 87, no. A9, 7370-7378.

[347.] Bochsler P. Structure of the solar wind and compositional variations. Space Sci. Rev., 1998, v. 85, 291-302.

[348.] Aellig M.R., Lazarus A.J. and Steinberg J.T. The solar wind helium abundance: Variations with wind speed and solar cycle. Geophys. Res. Let., 2001, v. 28, no. 14, 2767-2770.

[349.] Wurz P. Solar Wind Composition. In: The Dynamic Sun: Challenges for Theory and Observations, ESA SP-600, 2005, v. 5.2, 1-9.

[350.] Kasper J.C., Stevens M.L., Lazarus A.J. and Ogilvie K.W. Solar wind and helium abundance as a function of speed and heliographic latitude: Variation through a solar cycle. Astrophys. J., 2007, v. 660, 901-910.

[351.] Wang Y.M. Relating the solar wind helium abundance to the coronal magnetic field. Astrophys. J., 2008, v. 683, 499-509.

[352.] Parker E.N. Dynamics of the interplanetary gas and magnetic fields. Astrophys. J., 1958, v. 128, 664-675.

[353.] Biermann L. Uber die Ursache der chromospharischen Turbulenz und des UV-Exzesses der Sonnenstrahlung. Zeitshrift Kir Physik, 1948, v. 25, 161-177.

[354.] Unsold A. and Chapman S. Optical and radiofrequency ansorption by solar corpuscular burts. The Observatory, 1949, v. 69, 219-221.

[355.] Chapman S. The Viscosity and Thermal Conductivity of a Completely Ionized Gas. Astrophys. J., 1954, v. 120, 151-155.

[356.] Gough D.O., Leibacher J.W., Scherrer P.H., Toomre J. Perspectives in Helioseismology. Science, 1996, v. 272, no. 5266, 1281-4.

[357.] Gough D.O. Seismology of the Sun and distant stars. D. Riedel Publishing Company. Dordrecht, 1986.

[358.] Kosovichev A.G. Solar Oscillations. In: Stellar Pulsation--Challenges for Theory and Observation. AIP Int. Conf. Series., 2009, v. 1170, 547-559 (also in arXiv:1001.5283 [astro-ph.SR])

[359.] Christensen-Dalsgaard J. Helioseismology. Rev. Mod. Phys., 2003, v. 74, 1073-1129 (also in arXiv:astro-ph/0207403).

[360.] Antia H.M. Solar interior and helioseismology. In, Lectures on Solar Physics (H.M. Antia, A. Bhatnagar and R. Ulmschneider, Eds.), Springer, Berlin, 2003, p. 80-126.

[361.] Bahcall J.N., Pinsonneault M.H. and Basu S. Solar models: Current epoch and time dependences, neutrinos, and helioseismological properties. Astrophys. J., 2001, v. 555, 990-1012.

[362.] Kosovichev A.G. and Zharkova V.V. X-ray flare sparks quake inside the Sun. Nature, 1998, v. 393, 317-318.

[363.] Fleck B., Brekke P., Haugan S., Duarte L.S., Domingo V., Gurman J.B. and Poland A.I. Four years of SOHO discoveries--Some highlights. ESA Bulletin, 2000, v. 102, 68-86.

[364.] Kuhn J.R., Bush R.I., Schench X., and Scherrer P. The Sun's shape and brightness. Nature, 1998, v. 392, no. 6672, 155-157.

[365.] Charbonneau P., Christensen-Dalsgaard, Henning R., Larsen R.M., Schou J., Thompson M.J. and Tomczyk S. Helioseismic constraints on the structure of the solar tachocline. Astrophys. J., 1999, v. 557, no. 1, 445-460.

[366.] Antia H.M. and Basu S. Revisiting the solar tachocline: Average properties and temporal variations. Astrophys. J. Lett., 2011, v. 735, no. 2, L45(6 pages).

[367.] Miesch M.S. Large-scale dynamics of the convection zone and tachocline. Living Rev. SolarPhys., 2005, v. 2, (URL 2, (2005), 1. URL http://www.livingreviews.org/lrsp-2005-1--Accessed 10/1/2013.

[368.] Schou J., Antia H.M., Basu S., Bogart R.S., Bush R.I., Chitre S.M., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., di Mauro M.P., Dziembowski W.A., EffDarwich A., Gough D.O., Haber D.A., Hoeksema J.T., Howe R., Korzennik S.G, Kosovichev A.G., Larsen R.M., Pijpers F.P., Scherrer P.H., Sekii T., Tarbell T.D., Title A.M., Thompson M.J. and Toomre J. Helioseismic Studies of Differential Rotation in the Solar Envelope by the Solar Oscillations Investigation Using the Michelson Doppler Imager. Astrophys. J., 1998, v. 505, no. 1, 390-417.

[369.] Nakariakov V.M. and Verwichte E. Coronal waves and oscillations. Living Rev. Solar Phys., 2005, v. 2, 3-65.

[370.] Roberts B. Progress in coronal seismology. Proc. IAU: Waves and Oscillations in Solar Atmosphere, 2007, v. 247, 3-19.

[371.] De Moortel I. An overview of coronal seismology. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, 2005, v. 363, 2743-2760.

[372.] Morton R.J., Verth G., Fedun V., Shelyag S. and Erdelyi R. Evidence for the photospheric excitation of incompressible chromospheric waves. Astrphys. J., 2013, v. 768, no. 1, 17(11 pages).

[373.] SOHO/LASCO C2 NASA/ESA [2011/05/10 20:00:00 to 2011/05/11 08:00:00 UTC]. These events have been captured in video format and displayed online: e.g. youtube.com/watch?v=igeBrSGk5FA; Russia Today youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=Mat4dWpszoQ&feature=fvwp. (Accessed online on January 29, 2013: Examine beginning at 2011/05/10 2:48:00 to 2011/05/10 4:00:00). NASA provides a tool to generate such films: http://lasco-www.nrl. navy.mil/index. php?p=js_lasco 1.

[374.] Gamow G. The birth and death of the sun: A lucid explanation of stellar evolution and atomic energy. New American Library, New York, N.Y., 1952.

[375.] Arnett D. Supernovae and nucleosynthesis: An investigation of the history of matter, from the Big Bang to the present. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1996.

[376.] Pagel B. E. J. Nucleosythesis and the chemical evolution of galaxies (2nd Edition), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 2009.

[377.] Gamow G. Nuclear energy sources and stellar evolution. Phys. Rev., 1938, v. 53, 595-604.

[378.] Gamow G. Nuclear reactions in stellar evolution. Nature, 1939, v. 144, 620-622.

[379.] Bethe H.A. and Critchfield C.L. The Formation of Deuterons by Proton Combination. Phys. Rev., 1938, v. 54, no. 4, 248-254.

[380.] Bethe H. A. Energy Production in Stars. Phys. Rev., 1939, v. 55, no. 1, 103.

[381.] Bethe H.A. Energy Production in Stars. Phys. Rev., 1939, v. 55, no. 5, 434-456.

[382.] von Weizsacker C. F. Uber Elementumwandlungen in Innern der Sterne II. Physikalische Zeitschrift, 1938, v. 39, 633-646.

[383.] Hoyle F. The synthesis of the elements from hydrogen. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 1946, v. 106, 343-383.

[384.] Hoyle F. On nuclear reactions occurring in very hot stars. I. The synthesis of elements from carbon to nickel. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser., 1954, v. 1, 121-146.

[385.] Burbidge M., Burbidge G.R., Fowler W.A. and Hoyle F. Synthesis of the elements in stars. Rev. Mod. Phys., 1957, v. 29, no. 4, 547-654.

[386.] Wallerstein G., Iben I., Parker P., Boesgaard A.M., Hale G.M., Champagne A.E., Barnes C.A., Kappeler F., Smith V.V., Hoffman R.D., Timmes F.X., Sneden C., Boyd R.N., Meyer B.S. and Lambert D.L. Synthesis of the elements in stars: Forty years of progress. Rev. Mod. Phys., 1997, v. 9, no. 4, 995-1084.

[387.] Bahcall J.N. Neutrinos from the Sun. Sci. Am., 1969, v. 221, no. 1, 2837.

[388.] Bahcall J.N. How the Sun shines. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/themes/physics/fusion/.

[389.] Beers T.C. The first generation stars. Science, 2005, v. 309, no. 5733, 390-391.

[390.] Nickelsen K. and Gra/Shoff G. Concepts from the Bench: Hans Krebs, Kurt Henseleit and the Urea Cycle. In: "Going Amiss in Experimental Research" (G. Hon, J. Schickore, F. Steinle, Eds.), Boston Stud. Phil. Science, 2009, v. 267, 91-117.

[391.] Krebs H.A., Salvin E. and Johnson A. XX. The formation of citric and [alpha]-ketoglutaric acid in the mamalian body. Biochem. J., 1938, v. 32, no. 1, 113-117.

[392.] Reames D.V. and Ng C.K. Heavy-element abundances in solar energetic particle events. Astrophys. J., 2004, v. 610, 510-522.

[393.] Kasting J.F. and Grinspoon D.H. The faint young Sun problem: In "The Sun in Time" (C.P. Sonett, M.S. Giampapa, and M.S. Matthews, Eds.), The University of Arizona, Tuscon, 1991, pp. 447-462.

[394.] Zahnle K., Arndt N., Cockell C., Halliday A., Nisbet E., Selsis F. and Sleep N.H. Emergence of a habitable planet. Space Sci. Rev., 2007, v. 129, 35-78.

[395.] Solanski S.K. Solar variability and climate change: Is there a link. Astron. & Geophys., 2002, v. 43, no. 5, 5.9-5.13.

[396.] Lacis A.A., Schmidt G.A., Rind D. and Ruedy R.A. Atmospheric C[O.sub.2]: Principal control knob governing the Earth's temperature. Science, 2010, v. 330, 356-359.

[397.] Sackmann I.-J. and Boothboyd A. Our Sun V. A bright young Sun consistent with helioseismology and warm temperatures on ancient Earth and Mars. Astrophys. J., 2003, v. 583, 1024-1039.

[398.] Robitaille P.M. Class-O Wolf-Rayet stars and the birth of the Sun. A new look at stellar evolution. (manuscript in preparation)

[399.] Murthy V.R. Geochemical evidence for an initially molten Earth. Phys. Earth PlanetaryInteriors, 1992, v. 71, no. 1-2, 46-51.

[400.] Maunder E.W. Spoerer's Researches on Sun-Spots. Mon. Not. Roy. As tron. Soc., 1890, v. 50, 251-252.

[401.] Spcirer G. Uber die Periodicitat Sonnenflecken seit dem Jahre 1618, vornehmlich in Bezug auf die heliographische Breite derselben, und Nachweis einer erheblichen Storung dieser Periodicitat wahrend eines langen Zeitraumes. la. 4. Nova Acta der Ksl. Leopold-Caroline Deutschen Akademie der Natuifoischei, v. 53, no. 2, 283-324.

[402.] Sporer. Sur les differences que presentent l'hemisphere nord et l'hemisphere sud du Soleil. Bull. Astronomique, 1889, Ser. 1, v. 6, 60-63.

[403.] Eddy J.A. The Mauder Minimum. Science, v. 192, no. 4245, 1189-1202

[404.] Beckman J.E. and Mahoney T.J. The Mauder minimum and climate change: Have historical records aided current research? ASPConf. Ser., 1998, v. 153, 212-217.

[405.] Times of India. Solar Activity Drops to 100 Year Low, Puzzling Scientists. Sept. 18, 2013. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Solar-activity-drops-to-100year-low.

[406.] NASA. Big Sun-diving comet discovered. http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/scitech/display.cfm?ST_ID=2504.

[407.] Haramundanis K. Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin: An autobiography and other recollections (2nd Edition), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 1996.

[408.] Rabounski D. and Borissova L. Inside Stars. American Research Press, Rehoboth, NM, 2013. (available online: http://pteponline.com/index files/books files/stars2013.pdf).

Pierre-Marie Robitaille

Department of Radiology, The Ohio State University, 395 W. 12th Ave, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA.

robitaille. 1@osu.edu

* Translations from French were executed by the author.

* Eddington's mass-luminosity relationship [9, p. 145-179] stands as one of the great triumphs of the gaseous models. Today, this finding is well established in observational astronomy and Eddington's derivation is worthy of a detailed treatment. Due to space limitations, the topic will not be addressed herein. Suffice it to state that Eddington's derivation was dependent on the validity of Kirchhoff's law and no effort has been made to account for the relationship if the stars were made of condensed matter. At the same time, it must be noted that through the mass-luminosity relationship, an observation linked to distant objects, came to dictate the phase of the Sun. The relationship is not contingent on the behavior of the Sun itself, although the latter does lie on the main sequence of the stars.

* The model adopts a liquid state for the surface of the Sun, as this is in keeping with macroscopic observations. However, an extended structural lattice, not simply a random assembly of degenerate atoms, is required, as demonstrated in [section]2. Of course, on the scale of solar dimensions, even a material with the rigidity of a solid on Earth (i.e. with a high elastic modulus), might well appear and behave macroscopically as a liquid on the photosphere.

* A detailed series of publications related to the analysis of Kirchhoff's law has previously appeared. These can be consulted by those who seek a more extensive discussion of the subject matter (see [21-24]).

* For an extensive list of references on laboratory blackbodies and the materials used in their preparation, see [23].

* Eddington concluded that "the stars on the main series possess nearly the same internal temperature distribution" and inferred core temperatures in the millions of degrees [9, p. 177-178]. Given his belief that the laws of thermal emission [15-20] could be applied to the core of the stars, the temperatures he inferred would result in the production of photons with X-ray energies. Over thousands of years, these photons would slowly work their way out to escape at the photosphere. But as they traveled to the surface, they would slowly lose energy and become shifted to ever lower frequencies. Finally, upon reaching the surface, they would emit in the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum. To accomplish the feat, the gas models required that perfect and gradual changes in opacity enabled a blackbody spectrum produced at X-ray frequencies to be slowly converted to one existing in white light. The issue has previously been addressed by the author [3, 36, 42] and provides an example where accepted science required the suspension of disbelief.

* See [47] for a detailed discussion on the composition of the Sun.

* The second Planckian proof [45] was initially treated in [3,35,40,42].

* To this day, astronomy continues to maintain that the Sun's surface is an illusion, as seen in this text produced by the National Solar Observatory, "The density decreases with distance from the surface until light at last can travel freely and thus gives the illusion of a visible surface" [104, p. 4].

* This is not to say that stray light cannot present problems. However, these effects should make faculae even less apparent towards the limb, further highlighting the importance of the increase in emissivity which those structures display (see [section]2.3.5). Definitive answers may come eventually by examining large sunspots.

* The fourth Planckian proof [45] was initially part of the 14th line of evidence [45]. It has been presented, in greater detail, within [40] which contains an extensive list of references on the subject.

* Normal viewing occurs when the line of sight is perpendicular to the surface.

* These layers were not hotter in Spruit's model [136, 137].

* Metallic hydrogen requires extreme pressures for formation [39, 92] which can only exist within the solar body. As a result, though condensation is occurring within the chromosphere and corona, the resulting products are not metallic. Rather, it is likely that chromospheric material is comprised of dense hydrogen wherein molecular interactions between hydrogen atoms still persists [92]. Conversely, condensed matter which has been ejected from the solar body can be metallic in character and has been proposed to become distributed throughout the corona [60]. The solar atmosphere can simultaneously support the existence of two forms of hydrogen: chromospheric nonmetallic material, like as coronal rain or spicules (see [section]5.4, [section]5.6 and [53,59]) and coronal material which resembles photospheric Type-I metallic hydrogen (see [section]2.3.7 and [section]2.3.8) and [57, 58, 60]) and which can be found in the corona and its associated structures (see [section]3.8, [section]4.6, [section]5.5, [section]5.7 and [section]6.6 for complimentary evidence).

* This proof was ?rst presented as the 25th line of evidence [55].

* This proof was first presented as the eighteenth line of evidence [49].

* This proof was first presented as the seventeenth line of evidence [47, 59].

* Chromospheric condensed hydrogen structures, CHS, are likely to be composed of extremely dense condensed matter wherein molecular hydrogen interactions linger [92].

* The use of argon to represent hydrogen immediately suggests that these methods are not relevant to the Sun. Unlike hydrogen, argon has valence shells containing up to 18 electrons. This many electrons, when either ionized or polarized, presents an analogue with little or no resemblance to hydrogen and its lone electron.

* Here is a brief list of interesting ions and the ionization energies required for their production: HII = 13.6 eV; HeII = 24.6 eV; HeIII = 54.4 eV; MgII = 7.6eV; MgIII = 15.0eV; CaII = 6.1eV; CaIII = 11.8eV and FeXIV = 361 eV [233]. In this respect, note how the first ionized form of helium, HeII, requires 24.6 eV for its production. The generation of many triplet forms of orthohelium [HeI.sup.*] will demand energies of ~20eV. To remove two electrons from calcium yielding CaIII (the stable [Ca.sup.+2] ion) only requires 11.8 eV. As a result, how can the gas models account for the presence of CaII lines at high altitude on the Sun (5-10,000 km), when this ion only requires 6.1 eV for production? If such powerful HeII and [HeI.sup.*] can be observed, why is CaIII, which requires only 11.8 eV for its generation and has the inert gas, [Ar], configuration, not the preferred form of calcium? This provides a powerful clue that the presence (or absence) of an individual ion on the Sun is related to chemistry and not to temperature.

* Lines from neutral helium can be enhanced 50 fold on the limb relative to the disk [245, p. 199-200].

* The possibility that [He.sup.**] could have no electrons in the ground state is not considered.

* This proof was first presented as the sixteenth line of evidence [47, 59].

* The story which accompanies the mystical element coronium (or FeXIV) in the corona and its discovery by the likes of Harkness, Young, Grotian, and Edlen [151-153] has been recalled [265-268]. Wonderful images of the corona have recently been produced from highly ionized iron (e.g. FeX-FeXIV) [269-272].

* This proof was first presented as the third line of evidence [3,35,43,48].

* This proof was first presented as the fourth line of evidence [35,36].

* As a point of interest, the Southern star Achernar, has a tremendous oblateness which approaches 1.5 [285]. This value cannot be explained using the standard gaseous models wherein most of a star 's mass is restricted to the core. As such, scientists have sought to find alternative means to account for this oblateness [286].

* The anchoring of coronal holes was first presented as the 22nd line of evidence [52], while the rigid rotation of the corona was once treated as the 33rd [62]. These two proofs, being closely related to one another, have now been combined.

* To fully understand this proof, it is necessary to simultaneously consider the origins of surface activity ([section]5.1), coronal holes ([section]4.6), solar winds ([section]5.8), H[alpha] emission ([section]3.4) and HeII emission ([section]3.6). If the reader believes it difficult to follow, he/she may wish to move to other lines of evidence and return to this section once a more complete picture has been gained. This proof is listed as a structural proof ([section]), even though it results from dynamic ([section]) and spectroscopic ([section]) processes, because it is expressed as the steady state appearance of the chromosphere when the Sun is quiet. In 1997, the sunspot number was near minimum and the data presented in [243] was acquired at that time.

* Descriptions of a Sun which is 'boiling' can be found throughout the printed word. Examples occur in 1) children's books [299], 2) popular writings [300,301], 3) university level communications [302-305], 4) scientific news articles [306,307], or 5) scholarly publications [115,308-313]: 1) "The sun is a boiling mass of hot gasses" [299, p. 21], 2) "It shows rather clearly that the Sun is a boiling mass of energy, vastly violent and constantly changing" [300]; "Convection is also at work transferring energy from the radiative zone to the photosphere, with a vertical boiling motion" [301], 3) "The surface of the Sun shows us a pattern of boiling gas arranged in a distinctive cellular pattern known as granulation" [302]; "Solar plasma emitted from the Sun is a boiling off of the Sun's atmosphere" [303]; "It is easy to think of the sun as benign and unchanging, but in reality the sun is a dynamic ball of boiling gases that scientists are only beginning to understand" [304]; "Our Sun is an extremely large ball of bubbling hot gas, mostly hydrogen gas" [305], 4) "We don't yet have a model that explains these hills" [Jeffrey R.] Kuhn said, although he suspects that they are caused by the interaction of boiling gas and the sun's powerful magnetic field" [306]; "The researchers found that, as expected, this tumultuous region resembles a pot of boiling water: hot material rises through it, and cooler gases sink" [307], 5) "Under poor to fair seeing conditions, sometimes the solar limb appears boiling, this gives some idea about the degree of air turbulence" [115, p. 54]; "The surface of the Sun boils in an active manner as the result of the continuous production of energy inside the Sun" [308]; "The hot corona boiling off the surface of the Sun toward the cold void of interplanetary space constitutes the solar wind" [309]; "The current general idea on the global balance ... is that energy conducted down from the low corona must 'boil off' mass from the chromosphere ..." [310]; "Near its surface, the Sun is like a pot of boiling water, with bubbles of hot, electrified gas--actually electrons and protons in the forth state of matter known as "plasma "--circulating up from the interior, rising to the surface, and bursting out into space" [311]; "The sun is a churning mass of hot ionized gas with magnetic fields threading their way through every pore and core, driven by energies boiling out from the interior where the fusion of hydrogen into helium at a temperature of 15 million K liberates the nuclear energy that keeps the cauldron boiling" [312]; "The magnetic field guides these flows, thus influencing on the average the radial distribution in the boiling' layer" [313].

* Best performed using the high resolution image on the NASA SOHO website: http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/gallery/images/large/ 304cycle.jpg.

* This proof was first presented as the tenth line of evidence [35,36].

* Thermal vibrations can lower conductivity as temperatures are increased, but this effect is neglected in this case since both solid and liquid phases can exist at the melting point. Thus, any effect of thermal vibrations should be similar at this temperature in both phases.

* Chromospheric matter is likely to be comprised of condensed matter where molecular interactions between hydrogen atoms persist [92].

* This proof was first presented as the seventh line of evidence [35, 56, 59,61].

* There could be substantial opposition to the idea that critical phenomena are being observed in the chromosphere. However, spicule formation seems to reflect the scale length effects which characterize these processes.

* It is already difficult to accept that a low density vacuum could transfer its energy to the solar surface. This scheme becomes even more strained when coronal energy is permitted to flow freely, using conductive paths, away from the Sun. The only solution implies a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics, i.e. energy is being created in the middle of the corona.

* In this regard, it should be remembered that the chromosphere and the corona are working to actively recapture hydrogen, protons, and electrons. This would act to elevate the He/H ratio detected in any solar wind. In addition, since the Sun is degassing intercalate regions and its average stage index (see Fig. 19) may be quite large, the solar body might best be viewed as composed almost entirely of hydrogen.

* This proof was one of the earliest [4,29] and was presented, at one time, as the sixth line of evidence [35].

* This proof was first presented as the twentieth line of evidence [50].

* Note that the author has proposed a cycle in [section]3.6. In this case however, the formation of triplet He has not been left to chance. It is the direct product of a systematic chemical reaction. The other reactant in the cycle, hydrogen, is present in excess.

* The author has previously addressed Lane's law and the increased luminosity gained by the gaseous stars as they evolve [3]. With respect to stellar evolution, the LMH model will advance that stars cool as they evolve and do not increase in luminosity. The brightest stars (Classes O and A) are actually the youngest, while the faintest are the oldest (Class M). This is completely contrary to current beliefs in astronomy. Stellar evolution will be addressed in considerable in detail in an upcoming work [398].

* Agency URLs--http://www.isf.astro.su.se; http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov; http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov; http://www.bbso.njit.edu.

* She insisted that this work be produced and that the proofs be gathered in one treatise.

([dagger]) In the mid-1800s, five great pillars had given birth to the gaseous Sun: 1) Laplace's Nebular Hypothesis, 2) Helmholtz' contraction theory, 3) Cagniard de la Tour 's critical phenomena and Andrew's critical temperatures, 4) Kirchhoff's formulation of his law of thermal emission, and 5) the discovery of pressure broadening in gases. Each of these has previously been addressed in detail [2].

([dagger]) Magnetic fields are the product of underlying microscopic structure in condensed matter. As such, whenever a magnetic field is generated on Earth, condensed matter must be involved, either to directly generate it, or to cause the ordered flow of charge.

([dagger]) These proofs require the longest descriptions, as they touch many concepts in physics. Since they deal with thermal phenomena, they can also be referred to as the 'Planckian' lines of evidence, in recognition of Max Planck's contribution to this area of physics [19,20]. Beyond physics, Max Planck's philosophical writings (see references in [64]) and personal conduct [65], despite the evil of his times, have much to offer to modern society.

([dagger]) Note how this last sentence immediately implied that, if the solar interior could be viewed as enclosed, then the radiation existing within it must be of the same form (intensity versus frequency) as that emitted by a blackbody at the temperature in question.

([dagger]) In his derivation, Planck did not permit his volume-elements to reflect light [20, p. 1-45]. As a result, all these elements became perfectly absorbing and he was able to obtain Kirchhoff's law. However, had he properly included reflection, he would have convinced himself that Kirchhoff 's law was invalid (see [21-24] for a complete discussion).

([dagger]) The density at the center of the Sun is believed to approach 150 g/[cm.sup.3] [14, p. 483], a value compatible with conductive solids on Earth.

([dagger]) Setsuo Ichimaru was primarily concerned with nuclear reactions in high density plasmas [97-99]. His work on the solar core is based on assumptions for the composition of the solar interior [97, p. 2] which are derived from the gaseous models, "In the Sun ... the mass density and the temperature are estimated to be 156 g/[cm.sup.3] and 1.55 x [10.sup.7], respectively. The mass fraction of hydrogen near the core is said to be 0.36 and thus the mass density of metallic hydrogen there is 56.2 g/[cm.sup.3]" [98, p. 2660]. Ichimaru places specific emphasis on the One-Component Plasma (OCP) [97, pp. 103 & 209]. He assumed that the lattice points were those of a body-centered cubic [97]. The body-centered cubic is a solid structure. Its existence within the Sun had not been justified beyond inferred densities. Ichimaru's assumptions would have been easily supported by recent seismological evidence which demonstrates that the solar core experiences solid body rotation (see [50] and [section]6.5 in this work). His supposition has important consequences for driving nuclear reactions within the Sun (see [44,48] and [section]7.1 in this work).

([dagger]) As nearly perfect absorbers, carbon particles make for poor reflectors.

([dagger]) As a side note, Frank Very had suggested [101] that the limb darkening of the Sun might be associated with the solar granulations [3,101]. As will be seen in [section]2.3.4, the thought was not without merit.

([dagger]) This aspect of solar granules will be discussed in [section]5.1 as it is linked to activity on the solar surface. For the time being, the focus will remain on the structural and emissive aspects.

([dagger]) The fifth Planckian proof, as related to facular emissivity, was initially presented as the 15th line of evidence [45].

([dagger]) The sixth Plankian proof [45] was initially presented as the 26th line of evidence [56].

([dagger]) The seventh Plankian proof [45] was initially presented as the 27th line of evidence [57,60].

([dagger]) A 171[Angstrom] UV image from the quite Sun has been published [192, p. 38]. The Solar Dynamic Observatory website can be accessed for images at other frequencies in the ultra-violet (http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/aiahmi).

([dagger]) This proof was initially discussed in [54]. See [47], for a detailed discussion of how elemental abundances have been estimated.

([dagger]) While non-magnetic, spicules might nonetheless be confined by magnetic fields present in the charged plasmas or coronal metallic hydrogen that surrounds them, much as illustrated in Fig. 14.

([dagger]) While the vast majority of plasma studies report electron densities in the [10.sup.17] [cm.sup.-3] range, the He I studies range from [10.sup.15] [cm.sup.-3] to [10.sup.17] [cm.sup.-3] [224]. The lowest electron numbers, [10.sup.15] [cm.sup.-3], are produced using arc discharge low density plasma settings. However, these could have little relevance in the Sun, as arc experiments rely on the capacitive discharge of large voltages. They do not depend on fluctuating electromagnetic fields [228].

([dagger]) This proof was first presented as the thirtieth line of evidence [59].

([dagger]) As will be seen in [section]3.8, it is envisioned that the corona of the Sun is harvesting electrons.

([dagger]) 1eV = 11,600K ; 20eV = 232,000K.

([dagger]) The production of CaII emission lines from CaH had resulted in the transfer of two electrons per hydrogen atom (see [section]3.5). This can help keep charge neutrality in condensation reactions involving He[H.sup.+].

([dagger]) This proof was first presented as the 31st line of evidence [60, 62].

([dagger]) It will be noted in [section]5.5, that the gaseous solar models infer widely varying temperatures within the same regions of the corona when analyzing coronal loops (see Fig. 22). How could it be possible to sustain vastly differing values in the same region of the solar atmosphere? These findings are indicative that we are not sampling temperature, but rather substructures with distinct electron affinities. These substructures take advantage of a wide array of species to transfer electrons. Evidence for such a solution can be found in Fig. 1.10 of [192] which describes flare substructure and the associated variations in emitting species (arcade emitting in FeXII--spine emitting in FeXXIV and Ca XVII).

([dagger]) Conversely, the extended nature of our atmosphere is being maintained through gas pressure precisely because our planet possesses a real surface. When gas particles strike the Earth's surface, they undergo an immediate change in direction with upward directed velocities. Without the presence of a true surface, a net change in particle velocity cannot occur.

([dagger]) The Earth has a density of 5.5 g/[cm.sup.3]; Jupiter 1.326 g/[cm.sup.3]; Saturn 0.687 g/[cm.sup.3]; Neptune 1.638 g/[cm.sup.3]; Uranus 1.271 g/[cm.sup.3] [279].

([dagger]) This proof was first presented as the eleventh line of evidence [4, 35, 36, 42]. Solar surface imaging can include frequencies outside visible light. It continues to reveal the presence of new structures, not described in [section]2. These, and those to come, are included herein as a separate line of evidence as solar surface imaging exposes more structural complexity and temporal evolution.

([dagger]) See the wonderful Fig. 106 in [1, p. 310, V. I] relaying the corona during the eclipse of July 8, 1842

([dagger]) This proof was ?rst presented as the ninth line of evidence [35, 36]

([dagger]) A solar layer beneath the photosphere.

([dagger]) Deuterium and tritium, as hydrogen isotopes, should remain in the hexagonal proton planes. Like lithium, within a LMH model of the Sun, they should be retained within the solar body, with only small numbers escaping in the solar winds.

([dagger]) This proof was first presented as the twelfth line of evidence [35].

([dagger]) This proof was first presented as the 23rd line of evidence [53].

([dagger]) Spicules extend well into the lower corona where densities, according to the gaseous models, could be no greater than ~[10.sup.-15] g/[cm.sup.3], i.e. the density of the upper chromosphere [148]. The associated densities are ~[10.sup.-12] of the Earth's atmospheric density at sea level (~1.2 x [10.sup.-3] g/[cm.sup.3] [149]).

([dagger]) This proof was first presented as the 24th line of evidence [53].

([dagger]) Lithium provides one notable exception, as seen in [section]3.3 and [54].

([dagger]) This proof was first presented as the fifth line of evidence [35,36,42].

([dagger]) This proof was first presented in [50], as supportive of [section]4.4. However, solar oblateness does not depend on the use of helioseismology for its determination ([section]4.4) and has been invoked by Jeans [27, 28] as providing a mechanism to generate binaries [3]. As for higher order shape, it is indicative of forces which differ from those involved in creating oblateness. Upon reconsideration, higher order shape now stands on its own as a separate line of evidence.

([dagger]) This proof was first presented as the 29th line of evidence [58].

([dagger]) (3) He could also emit a positron to make tritium, 3H. Remaining in the hexagonal plane, this hydrogen isotope could then react with a single proton to make (4) He, which could then be expelled into the intercalate region.

([dagger]) The mystery of the appearance of water on a planet that was once molten has not been properly addressed by anyone to the author's knowledge.

([dagger]) Jacob was the first to state that someday forty proofs would be published.

([double dagger]) Solar astronomers, upon further consideration, will recognize that their own subject areas might also provide additional lines of evidence. With time, these complimentary proofs will eventually surface.

([double dagger]) In processes where light is emitted, there are five aspects to consider: 1) the physical setting, 2) separate energy levels created in this setting, 3) a transition species which will make use of these energy levels, 4) the production of a photon, and 5) an equation. For instance, for Lyman-[alpha] radiation these correspond to 1) the hydrogen atom, 2) the two electronic orbitals involved in the transition--principle quantum numbers N=2 and N=1, 3) the electron as the transition species, 4) the Lyman-[alpha] emission at 1216[Angstrom], and 5) the Rydberg formula. Alternatively, in speaking of the proton nuclear magnetic resonance line from water, these correspond to 1) the hydrogen atoms of the water molecules placed in a magnetic field, 2) the hydrogen nuclear spin up or spin down states, 3) the hydrogen nuclear spin as a transition species, 4) the hydrogen line at 4.85 ppm, and 5) the Larmor equation. Analogous entries can be made for any spectroscopic process in physics, with the exception of blackbody radiation. In that case, only the 4th and 5th entries are known: 4) the nature of the light and 5) Planck's equation [21].

([double dagger]) One cannot expect scientists to revisit the validity of every law upon which they shall base their work. As such, if 20th century astronomers committed a misstep in applying Kirchhoff 's law to the Sun, it is not at all clear how this could have been prevented. Indeed, when the author was first considering these problems, he actually believed that Kirchhoff's law was valid (i.e. [29]), but that the Sun simply failed to meet the requirements set forth by enclosure. It was only later, following an extensive review of blackbody radiation [21-24], that he came to realize that there was an error in the law itself.

([double dagger]) The Sun is known to possess powerful magnetic fields and a solar dynamo. Their existence strongly argues for conduction within condensed matter (see [35,39] and [section]5.3).

([double dagger]) The third Planckian proof [45] was initially the 13th line of evidence [35]. It has been presented, in greater detail, within [4,40,45].

([double dagger]) In these models, the photosphere is assumed to have a density of ~[10.sup.-7] g/[cm.sup.3], while the outer chromosphere has a density of ~[10.sup.-15] g/[cm.sup.3] [148]. This constitutes an 8 order of magnitude decrease in just a few thousand kilometers. As a point of reference, the density of the Earth's atmosphere at sea level is ~1.2 x [10.sup.-3] g/[cm.sup.3] [149] or ~10,000 greater than calculated photospheric densities for the gas models.

([double dagger]) Yet, the "single bright green line" which had been observed by Harkness would eventually be identified as originating from highly ionized iron (i.e. FeXIV). Within the gaseous context, the only means of generating these ions would involve the presence of extreme temperatures in the corona. Conversely, the ions could be produced if condensed matter can be postulated to exist in this region of the Sun. The origin of highly ionized ions in the corona constitutes one of the most elegant lines of evidence for the presence of condensed matter in this region of the Sun, supporting the idea that the corona is, in fact, cool (see [60] and [section]3.8 for a complete discussion).

([double dagger]) Note that these findings further bring into question the optical depth arguments that had been brought forth to explain limb darkening within the gaseous models in [section]2.3.3. Should the Sun truly possess a vacuum-like photospheric density of only [10.sup.-7] g/[cm.sup.3] [148], then the limb should not act as such a dramatic boundary relative to the intensity of UV and X-ray emissions.

([double dagger]) This proof was first presented as the 32nd line of evidence [61].

([double dagger]) Selective excitation was also used to account for the emission lines from molecular hydrogen [220]. But it is more likely that these reflect the delivery of a hydrogen cluster (see [section]3.4.1) with [H.sup.*.sub.2] rather than [H.sup.*] expulsion.

([double dagger]) In this regard, it is important to note that most of the ions present in the "XUV spectrum are principally those with one or two valence electrons " [245, p. 173]. This observation is highly suggestive that systematic processes are taking place, not random bombardments.

([double dagger]) Setsuo Ichimaru had assumed, based on the gaseous models, that the core of the Sun had a density of 150 g/[cm.sup.3] when he considered that it could be composed of metallic hydrogen [97-99]. He did not address the composition of the solar body or atmosphere.

([double dagger]) This proof was first presented as the 34th line of evidence [62].

([double dagger]) Conveniently, the density of liquid metallic sodium ([rho] ~0.927 g/[cm.sup.3] [325, p. 4-128]) approaches that hypothesized to exist at the tachocline layer in the gaseous models of the Sun ([rho] ~0.2 g/[cm.sup.3] [326]).

([double dagger]) Some authors have attempted, although not very convincingly, to establish a relationship between spicular velocities and gravitational forces (e.g. [337]).

([double dagger]) This proof was first presented in [47, 48, 52].

([double dagger]) A body center cubic structure, as proposed in computational studies of dense plasmas by Setsuo Ichimaru [97], would be appropriate for the solar core (see [section]6.5).

([double dagger]) This resembles tectonic shifts on Earth. Such a parallel was drawn by Luc Robitaille (personal communication).

([double dagger]) See [372] for a brief, but well compiled, literature review.

([double dagger]) This requires simply that the reaction of a deuterium atom with a proton is preferred over its reaction with another deuterium atom. This would be expected in a hyrogen based Sun.

([double dagger]) Shock related degassing of the Sun should be viewed as something positive. A star unable to properly degas might well exfoliate, as discussed in [48], and become a red giant or a supernova. Therefore, shock degassing may well be necessary, even if Earthly temperatures subsequently fall for rather long periods of time.

([double dagger]) Chrisophe provided several of these lines of evidence in a paper we jointly authored based on the behavior of the solar winds and the structure of the Sun [48]. At the time, I had failed to recognize that these constituted additional proofs for condensed matter.

([section]) The author presents a complete list of his relevant works [2-4, 29-62] in order to facilitate the study of these problems.

([section]) The author has previously addressed the stellar opacity problem [42].

([section]) The author has stated that the true energy content of the photosphere would correspond to real temperatures in the millions of degrees. The vast majority of this energy is trapped within the translational degrees of freedom associated with the differential convection currents. The conduction bands responsible for the solar magnetic fields likewise harness some of the solar surface energy. The apparent temperature of -6,000K corresponds to the energy contained within the photospheric vibrational degrees of freedom [41].

([section]) A least one electron must remain for line emission.

([section]) This proof was first presented as the 21st line of evidence [51].

([section]) Much like in medicine, where MRI can be performed using only the Earth's magnetic field (~0.5 gauss) [327], it is impossible to perform dynamo experiments within the laboratory in the absence of an initial ambient static field magnetic field, as has been recognized (e.g. [323]).

([section]) The author has previously described the situation as follows, "Critical opalescence occurs when a material is placed at the critical point, that combination of temperature, pressure, magnetic field, and gravity wherein the gas liquid interface disappears. At the critical point, a transparent liquid becomes cloudy due to light scattering, hence the term critical opalescence. The gas is regaining order as it prepares to re-enter the condensed phase" [35].

([section]) This compares to thousands, perhaps millions, of years for a photon to leave the core of the gaseous Sun (see [section]2.3.1 and [42]).

([section]) This proof was first presented as the nineteenth line of evidence [50].

([section]) This proof was first presented in [44,48].

([section]) The solar neutrino problem has not been addressed in this work as a full exposition would involve too much discussion. Suffice it to state that difficulties involved in obtaining proper neutrino counts highly suggest that the Sun is sustaining other nuclear reactions beyond the simple synthesis of (4) He.

([section]) Ever creative, Luc generated many of the figures in my relavent papers and has been a careful and just critic of both style and scientific presentation.

([paragraph]) The first Planckian proof [45] was initially treated in [29,35,36,42,43].

([paragraph]) The eighth Plankian proof [45] was initially presented as the 28th line of evidence [58].

([paragraph]) While the corona is primarily composed of metallic hydrogen, as will be seen in [section]5.4, it can provide a framework to allow for the condensation of hydrogen in non-metallic form.

([paragraph]) As a point of reference relative to the accuracy of measurements, machinists typically work to tolerances of a few thousands of an inch. According to a young machinist (Luke Ball, Boggs and Associates, Columbus, Ohio), a "standard dial caliper is accurate to [+ or -] 0.001 ", and a micrometer provides greater accuracy to [+ or -] 0.0001 ". The Mitutoyo metrology company was founded in 1934, and they produce a digital high-accuracy sub-micron micrometer that is accurate to .00002."

([paragraph]) Coronal holes persist above the poles during periods of reduced solar activity (see [section]4.6).

([paragraph]) These constitute a single line of evidence as they are both related to climatic changes on Earth.

([parallel]) This proof was first presented as the eighth line of evidence [3, 35, 36, 50].

Table 1: Forty Lines of Evidence for Condensed Matter--The Sun on
Trial.

I. Planckian Lines of Evidence [section]2 p. 92

1. Solar Spectrum [section]2.3.1 p. 95

2. Limb Darkening [section]2.3.2 p. 97

3. Sunspot Emissivity [section]2.3.3 p. 98

4. Granular Emissivity [section]2.3.4 p. 100

5. Facular Emissivity [section]2.3.5 p. 101

6. Chromospheric Emissivity [section]2.3.6 p. 102

7. K-Coronal Emissivity [section]2.3.7 p. 103

8. Coronal Structure Emissivity [section]2.3.8 p. 103

II. Spectroscopic Lines of Evidence [section]3 p. 104

9. UV/X-ray Line Intensity [section]3.1 p. 104

10. Gamma-Ray Emission [section]3.2 p. 104

11. Lithium Abundances [section]3.3 p. 105

12. Hydrogen Emission [section]3.4 p. 106

13. Elemental Emission [section]3.5 p. 108

14. Helium Emission [section]3.6 p. 109

15. Fraunhofer Absorption [section]3.7 p. 112

16. Coronal Emission [section]3.8 p. 112

III. Structural Lines of Evidence [section]4 p. 114

17. Solar Collapse [section]4.1 p. 114

18. Density [section]4.2 p. 115

19. Radius [section]4.3 p. 115

20. Oblateness [section]4.4 p. 115

21. Surface Imaging [section]4.5 p. 116

22. Coronal Holes/Rotation [section]4.6 p. 116

23. Chromospheric Extent [section]4.7 p. 117

24. Chromospheric Shape [section]4.8 p. 118

IV. Dynamic Lines of Evidence [section]5 p. 118

25. Surface Activity [section]5.1 p. 118

26. Orthogonal Flows [section] 5.2 p. 121

27. Solar Dynamo [section]5.3 p. 121

28. Coronal Rain [section]5.4 p. 122

29. Coronal Loops [section]5.5 p. 123

30. Chromospheric Condensation [section]5.6 p. 124

31. Splashdown Events [section]5.7 p. 125

32. Solar Winds and the Solar Cycle [section]5.8 p. 125

V. Helioseismic Lines of Evidence [section]6 p. 127

33. Solar Body Oscillations [section]6.1 p. 127

34. Mass Displacement [section]6.2 p. 128

35. Higher Order Shape [section]6.3 p. 129

36. Tachocline and Convective Zones [section]6.4 p. 129

37. Solar Core [section]6.5 p. 129

38. Atmospheric Seismology [section]6.6 p. 129

VI. Elemental Lines of Evidence [section]7 p. 129

39. Nucleosynthesis [section]7.1 p. 129

VII. Earthly Lines of Evidence [section]8 p. 130

40. Climatic [section]8.1 p. 131
COPYRIGHT 2013 Progress in Physics
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2013 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:pp. 116-142
Author:Robitaille, Pierre-Marie
Publication:Progress in Physics
Date:Oct 1, 2013
Words:29599
Previous Article:Forty lines of evidence for condensed matter--the sun on trial: liquid metallic hydrogen as a solar building block.
Next Article:n-valued refined neutrosophic logic and its applications to physics.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |