I don't recall you posting anything of this kind. Perhaps I missed it.
Evidently.
All I remember is telling you that fluorescent light tubes are rated in "temperature" in degrees kelvin, and that "temperature" does in no way correlate to an actual physical temperature of the tube, it's a number produced by black body formulas.
I explained what's lacking in your explanation, and why it's irrelevant in this context.
That the sun is not a black body radiator is evidenced by, once again, the "temperature" minimum in the corona.
That demonstrates nothing of the sort. And that answer is independent of whatever solar model you want to pick. In other words, you're wrong about this even if you're right about
everything else.
There are two tests if an object acts as a blackbody, which thermodynamics tells us must be equivalent.
1) the body radiates like a blackbody
2) the body absorbs like a blackbody
The sun radiates like a blackbody. We know this, because we can observe this. See the link in my previous post. Therefore, the sun is a blackbody. We can conclude this
regardless of what the corona does in terms of temperature.
While this "temperature minimum" is readily explained in terms of electric discharge in plasma, it has no explanation if the sun is a black body radiator shining from internal heat radiated from inside.
And yet, you can't explain why it can't, and I've already explained why it can.
This is just a fact, deal with it, it's not a consequence of anyone's hypothesis, it's a consequence of the definitions of these words and observable reality.
Obviously not, since the sun is
observed to be a blackbody.
Your implication that a "temperature" minimum in the sun's corona is an expected consequence of the laws of thermodynamics, or that the "standard model" (stellar fusion) is verified by any evidence is laughable in the extreme.
You've just demonstrated that you didn't understand anything I said. It's not a
consequence of the laws of thermodynamics, it's
in agreement with the laws of thermodynamics. Just like the operation of my car is in agreement with the laws of thermodynamics. But thermodynamics didn't predict the existence of my car.
The temperature minimum is the result of 2 factors:
1) The corona is almost completely transparent
2) A secondary mechanism heats the corona
That's it, that's
all you need. And none of it contradicts the standard model.
Yet more evidence suggesting the model is wrong. If your model suggests "impossible" conditions, it is not falsifiable.
I can't run a lab experiment demonstrating what would happen if a human body were dropped into the sun, but does that mean that the prediction that it would evaporate is false? Well, no.
The standard model is falsifiable. We don't need it to be reproduced here on earth in order for it to be falsifiable. And the conditions aren't impossible, they're just impossible
for us. But you can't seriously be so ignorant as to assume that if we can't reproduce something, it can't exist. Can you?
In the fifties it was pretty firmly established that if a hypothesis is not falsifiable, it is not science. Ergo, stellar fusion is not science. QED
Except that falsifiable and reproducible are not the same thing. Plenty of things could falsify it. For example, if the energy released from fusion events was too small, that would falsify it. If the rate of fusion under stellar conditions was too large, that could falsify it. If fusion produced too many or too few neutrinos, that could falsify it (and for a while it looked like it might have, until we measured neutrino oscillation). Plenty of things could falsify it, even without reproducing those conditions on earth.
And let's be honest, you haven't exactly been able to produce a self-powered plasma ball using electromagnetism either. So this is really just another example of the double standard you're trying to establish.
As I explained already, the amount of current bears a direct correlation with the sun's total energy output.
No ****, Sherlock.
I also explained that the "voltage" of the (note: VARIABLE) electric field powering the sun is not known.
Of course it's not known, because you don't have anything even resembling a model. And the variability is irrelevant, there's still an average. In fact, given the relative constancy of solar output, that average had better be pretty stable. It's certainly not going to be varying by more than an order of magnitude, and as I already said, that's good enough for me. That's far more wiggle room than the standard model has.
That said, there are estimates of the energy density near the surface, based on firmly-established and well-understood principles of electrical engineering. Dr. Donald Scott produced just such an estimate of the energy density in the corona, illustrating the "water slide" effect (again, firmly established principles of electrical engineering) that completely account for the observed "temperature" minimum in the corona. Go research Dr. Scott's work, it's very illuminating, particularly to people who deny there is electricity in space.
You're the expert here, why don't you just tell us? Surely you're not placing faith in a model you hardly know anything about, are you?
Holy Cow. 
