C. F. Krafft 1961 wrote about an electric Sun model with energy from the outside reacting only on the surface of the Sun

[Holger Isenberg]

As I haven't found this reference yet here in the forum, only some other links to Carl Frederick Krafft's work, adding this now:

The Constitution of the Sun and Stars
Carl Frederick Krafft, 1961
https://borderlandsciences.org/journal/ ... Stars.html

This was a quite advanced theory for 1961 by Carl Frederick Krafft, especially considering the (public) discovery of dynamic electromagnetic fields in space only 3 years before in 1958. Quote:

The heat of the sun is probably generated by bombardment of its outer atmosphere by cosmic rays consisting of subatomic particles

Also potentially interesting: The Structure of the Atom by Carl F. Krafft. Quote:

Here is the theory, based on observation and astute insight, that the atom is a vortexian structure, rather than the "swarm of flies" type of atom conceived through high energy electrical experiments. Also included is an Alternative Explanation for the Red Shift, and the Constitution of the Sun and Stars.

[crawler]

search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&keyw ... t&start=15

Krafft gets 31 mentions on this forum, mainly by myself (starting in 2020).
And 3 mentions on the old forum.
Krafft is one of my heroes.

[crawler]

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE SUN AND STARS
Carl Frederick Krafft
According to the accredited science of today, the sun and stars are gaseous bodies with temperatures of millions of degrees inside. The scientific profession is so sure of this that anybody who thinks otherwise is simply not given a chance to be heard, although a simple calculation under the gas laws will show that any celestial body similar to the sun, and with a density approximately equal to that of ocean water, would explode immediately if heated to a temperature of millions of degrees centigrade.
Our sun is just an average star, and a mere glance at it should be sufficient to convince anybody that it cannot be gaseous inside. A ball of gas would not have a sharp circular outline like the periphery of the sun. Gaseous clouds do exist elsewhere in the universe, but they do not appear as suns or stars. The periphery of the sun does, however, bear a remarkable resemblance to a horizon of ocean water. This conclusion is further corroborated by the density of the sun which is just slightly greater than that of ocean water–exactly what would be expected if the sun consists mainly of water, but with a solid core at the center.
If the heat from the sun really came from a hot interior, then as the late Dr. Hermann Fricke of Germany has pointed out, sunspots should be incandescent and not dark. Numerous photographs have been taken of sunspots from all angles, and these photographs show beyond any possibility of a doubt that sunspots are nothing else than splashes in the luminous layer. The luminous material is thrown to the sides, leaving a wide open hole at the center through which the dark interior of the sun can be viewed–perhaps not absolutely dark, but much darker that the luminous surface with its temperature of 6000 degrees. According to all authentic science of today, we are supposed to believe that within this dark interior there is raging a temperature of 50,000,000 degrees! It is just too much for the writer to swallow.
The heat of the sun is probably generated by bombardment of its outer atmosphere by cosmic rays consisting of subatomic particles drawn in by the gravitational force of the sun. We have a similar heated layer in the upper atmosphere of our earth where cosmic ray intensity is much greater and the temperature is hundreds of degrees higher than at the surface of the earth. Since the gravitational force at the surface of the sun is thirty times that at the surface of the earth, it is not difficult on this basis to account for the 6000 degree temperature at the surface of the sun, without making any fantastic assumptions of interior temperatures of millions of degrees.
A hot outer atmosphere would not necessarily heat up the interior of the sun, as has often been argued. Heat can travel only by radiation, conduction, or convection. Radiation is stopped immediately by even the thinnest layers of opaque material, and conduction through thousands of miles of poorly conducting material is a very slow process. There remains then only convection, and in a gravitational field the effect of convection is always to produce stratification–the hotter masses rising to the top and the cooler masses sinking to the bottom. If now we make the reasonable assumption that the effect of convection is greater than the combined effect of radiation and conduction, then any large celestial body with sufficient water on it should act like an automatic refrigerator–its interior remaining cool indefinitely notwithstanding the generation of heat on its surface. Some of the water on the [25]surface of the sun will undoubtedly be evaporated by the intense heat, and may even become dissociated into oxygen and hydrogen, but the reverse of these processes will also occur, until a condition of equilibrium has been established. The ultimate result will be a gigantic turbulence on the surface of the sun, such as can be observed any time, but which will leave the interior of the sun unaffected.
The cosmic rays which are drawn in by gravitational force consist mainly of subatomic particles such as protons, electrons and neutrons. If these are clusters of vortex rings which were produced in the interstellar ether by the turbulence of light and heat waves, then we have here a cyclic process which could go on indefinitely. The energy which leaves the sun and stars in the form of light and heat radiation is again returned to them in the form of cosmic ray particles, and any matter which is annihilated during this process is similarly returned from interstellar space.
Annandale, Virginia February, 1961.
NOTE: Sunspots are not caused by explosions from inside the sun because they would then be covered by huge clouds similar to the mushroom clouds of atomic explosions.
FURTHER COMMENTS:
Recent photographs taken from a high altitude balloon have shown most clearly that sunspots are definitely splashes, and a well defined splash cannot be produced in a gas but only on the surface of a liquid. The surface of the sun, except for its gaseous atmosphere, must therefore be liquid.
The darkness of sunspots has at times been attributed to large masses of condensate plunging into the hot gaseous surface of the sun and cooling the gases locally. If this were the true explanation, then it would be difficult to explain, not only the splash itself, but also the granular formation of the luminous material which has every appearance of clouds in the sun’s atmosphere. If the heat and light of the sun really does come from its interior, then it would be the spaces between the clouds which should be luminous, and not the clouds themselves. Photographs however have clearly shown that whenever adjacent clouds (luminous granules) leave tiny openings between them, the space behind them thus exposed is always relatively dark–never luminous or incandescent.
The luminosity of these cloudlike granules is probably produced by cosmic protons and neutrons drawn into the sun’s outer atmosphere by gravitational force and condensing into helium ions or atoms. We do not need to assume that such cosmic protons and neutrons are in every respect identical with the protons and neutrons that have been produced in physical laboratories, and the extreme conditions of temperature, pressure, electrification and neutron concentration that exist on the surface of the sun have never been duplicated simultaneously or even approximated artificially. Let us therefore not be so rash as to say the formation of helium in the atmosphere of the sun from cosmic protons and neutrons would be impossible.

[Holger Isenberg]

Good to have the complete text here now!
I'm not 100% sure, but I guess that Hermann Fricke is the same who also wrote books for aviation training at that time in the 1930s. He had a Dr. degree in physics (more than US-Phd) but never worked in the scientific academy circles as he most likely was rejected due to his opposition against Einstein's famous theory.

[crawler]

If the heat from the sun really came from a hot interior, then as the late Dr. Hermann Fricke of Germany has pointed out, sunspots should be incandescent and not dark. Numerous photographs have been taken of sunspots from all angles, and these photographs show beyond any possibility of a doubt that sunspots are nothing else than splashes in the luminous layer. The luminous material is thrown to the sides, leaving a wide open hole at the center through which the dark interior of the sun can be viewed–perhaps not absolutely dark, but much darker that the luminous surface with its temperature of 6000 degrees. According to all authentic science of today, we are supposed to believe that within this dark interior there is raging a temperature of 50,000,000 degrees! It is just too much for the writer to swallow.



Fricke H (1919) Eine neue und einfache Deutung der Schwerkraft und eine anschauliche Erklärung der Physik des Raumes. Wolfenbüttel: Heckner.

Funny.... I was born in Wolfenbuttel, in 1947.





https://aspace.lib.vt.edu/agents/people/984

Fricke, Hermann, 1876-1949 Person Dates Existence: 1876 - 1949 Biographical Note
Hermann Fricke was a German cosmologist and one of a group of physicists that disagreed with Einstein's theory of special relativity. He supported using "ether" to explain electromagnetism.

Found in 1 Collection or Record: Hermann Fricke Manuscript CollectionIdentifier: Ms-2008-062
Abstract
This collection contains German cosmologist Hermann Fricke's manuscript of "Eine Neue Sonnentheorie" from 1932 utilizes Sir William Siemens and William Herschel's ideas on sun spots and the solar corona to suggest new theoretical perspectives on the sun's relationship to the atmosphere.

Dates: 1932 Found in: Special Collections and University Archives, Virginia Tech / Hermann Fricke Manuscript




Marginalization processes in science: The controversy about the theory of relativity in the 1920s
Milena Wazeck
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
Abstract
In the 1920s, hundreds of pamphlets were published whose authors self-confidently claimed
to have refuted the theory of relativity. The opposition to relativity was extraordinarily fierce
and lasted years, including not only physicists and philosophers but also scientific laymen. What
were the motives of Einstein’s opponents? On what basis was the theory of relativity attacked so
vociferously? This article focuses on the emergence of a heterogeneous international network of
academic and nonacademic opponents to Einstein in the early 1920s and suggests a theoretical
approach for understanding the nature of the controversy about the theory of relativity. I argue that
the controversy about the theory of relativity represents a type of controversy that is unresolvable
because of the ontological commitments underlying the arguments against academic consensus and
the social dynamics of a process of marginalization of proponents of deviant knowledge.
Keywords
Albert Einstein, controversy, dissident science, marginalization, theory of relativity
Introduction
Prague, October 1913. Oskar Kraus (1872–1942), Associate Professor of Philosophy at
the German University, sent alarming letters to Ernst Gehrcke (1878–1960), an experimental physicist at the Imperial Technical Institute in Berlin:
I’m suffering from a severe fatigue and irritability, which, not least, is caused by the absurd
theories of the relativists. I have the burning desire to expose the origin of the error that lies
behind all the absurdities that you, dear sir, have accurately characterized yourself. I also see
Corresponding author:
Milena Wazeck, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich,
NR4 7TJ, UK.
Email: M.Wazeck@uea.ac.uk
469855SSS43210.1177/0306312712469855Social Studies of ScienceWazeck
2013
A

[Holger Isenberg]

Have to correct my previous assumption: physicist Hermann Fricke born 1876 in Goslar, who wrote about the Sun is a different person than pilot Hermann Fricke, born 1890 in Wolfenbuettel, who wrote a few books on aviation training.

physicist, federal employee at the German Patent Office:
https://www.deutsche-biographie.de/gnd120446804.html

pilot and German air force officer:
https://theaerodrome.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48197

Interestingly Einstein was federal employee at the Swiss Patent Office.

[crawler]

https://www.youtube.com/@SkyScholar

Sky Scholar is the best website re the Sun.

[Holger Isenberg]

Sky Scholar is the best website re the Sun.

Definitely! I'm glad to have talked to him in 2014 in Albuquerque even before he started his youtube channel.