.. i didn't hear Wal mention solar spectroscopy. ? ..
You are correct. That is what mainstream astronomers write in their papers.
Thornhill just references to these reports as "magnetic fields" and assumes that they were actually found.
He tells about how the mainstream tries to explain these magnetic fields with currents from
other magnetic fields. And is correct in that it is not a valid explanation.
Let me pick a few recent papers from the SO channel:
Magnetic Fields from Filaments to Cores
"Zeeman observations indicate field strengths
that can be comparable to or even dominate
over gravity, turbulence or centrifugal force."
THE EMBEDDED RING-LIKE FEATURE AND STAR FORMATION ACTIVITIES IN 35.673-00.847
"These authors also examined the evolution of these subcritical
clouds/ring-like features, and found that a subcritical
cloud fragments into multiple magnetically supercritical
cores/clumps, where the birth of young stellar populations
Evaluation of the Interplanetary Magnetic Field Strength Using the Cosmic-Ray Shadow of the Sun
"The solar magnetic field on the photosphere has been continuously monitored
by optical measurements using the Zeeman effect
, while the local IMF at the Earth has been directly observed by the
near Earth satellites"
Spectroscopic Observations of a Current Sheet in a Solar Flare
Here the apply the invalid magnetic reconnection model, with the idea that the current
goes from one "magnetic island" to another.
As I described above these "magnetic islands" are actually charged regions.
Otherwise no current would exist.
Instead of having observations of "magnetic fields" we often have observations of electric fields instead.
The Stark effect was discovered many years after the Zeeman effect, and maybe this caused the
scientists at that time to think that the effects were only caused by magnetism. And mixed
with a bad understanding of electromagnetism they invented the magnetic reconnection unicorn.
Could you please give some description of your model vs the Thunderbolts/EU model ?
I have no different model than the EU / Thornhill.
Rather, I have no model at all. I am still learning.
But I see that the mainstream is misinterpreting the observations of the Sun.
This is true for whatever model you are using.
And it seems that Thornhill fell for it a few times, since he actively talks about magnetism on the sun.
I think that even he trusted the mainstream astronomers too much (on that observation).
The model that Thornhill describes seems to work better electric fields anyway.
As I understand it, the penumbra are a current between two opposite charges.
These charges are visible in the Stark effect in the video I uploaded.
They appear as black or white, depending on the polarity.
But as I look more into this stuff, it seems more and more that
the mainstream astronomy has made a huge mistake that is also
very wrong for any known physics.