the other fundamental problem (other than solid iron?) is that it is not our job to explain the gas model to you, Michael. this, too, you have been told repeatedly. it isn't even our job to explain the holes in it. the gas model is, for a whole huge list of reasons that you're been told repeatedly, the standard model.
note, please, that those reasons do not include any vast conspiracy to keep your model in the dark, so to speak. those reasons include the huge, huge number of predictions that the gas model can make that can then be used. no, I can't go into detail. repeat, English major. however, I do know enough about science to know that, if it didn't, a nuclear chemist in the latter third of the twentieth century wouldn't be the first to recognize that.
okay. since the gas model does make all those successful predictions, it is assumed that, if you're going to overthrow it, you know enough about it to do so. ergo, it is not the job of mainstream science to educate you. it is your job to educate yourself. you say you've done a lot of study in this field. fine. so you should know how Newtonian physics predict a weight for the sun. you should know how (and this is a stab in the dark, guys, so if I'm wrong about this, let me know, huh?) that weight influences the very orbital mechanics that make those satellites studying the sun possible. you should know that there is only one kind of photon--I do, and I haven't studied the sun in any detail!
pant, pant, pant.
okay, I'm done ranting, but you need to be done shifting the burden of proof. it's your job to explain things, because it's your hypothesis that you're defending. and I still don't understand how the iron can stay solid.
"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"
"You can't erase icing."
"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"