NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.

Cycle

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #25,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from Rass on February 2nd, 2017, 07:18 PM
You forget where the center of gravity is and its strength. Of course the heavier elements are going to be in the core. For any significant amount to escape regularly would be an incredible feat.
Wasn't it you who said that iron and silicon were prevalent in "electric arcs" (your description of solar flares, a wholly magnetohydrodynamic phenomenon)? And that's just in solar flares, where you yourself admit iron and silicon are reaching the surface of the sun... a CME is much more energetic, and thus would tend to eject any matter, no matter how heavy it is.

Methinks you're not cognizant of just how energetic things are during a CME.
Quote from Rass on February 2nd, 2017, 07:18 PM
NASA monitors specifically for iron and silicon spectral profiles. Is it all just for fun? To assume heavy elements don't play an important role AND there isn't more underneath the surface, is ludicrous. Yes, it is easier to ignore these basic principles in order to fit preconceived models but it is still WRONG. Boyle's law is a law for a reason and elements are naturally sorted by weight, even in plasmas. The same physics found on Earth should apply to the Sun.
The earth doesn't experience massive magnetohydrodynamic mixing from its core to its surface which can eject as much as a billion tons of matter.
Quote from Rass on February 2nd, 2017, 07:18 PM
The standard model of the sun is one big fat lie. NASA is full of it when they disseminate such B.S.
Ok, we're done here. If you're denying the Standard Model and throwing around conspiracy theories, all while trying to promote your own brand of crackpottery which is easily (and has been amply) refuted, all while you ignore that refutation so you can continue to blather on about your crackpottery, you won't be contributing to a solution which brings clean renewable safe affordable energy to the planet.

Before you know it, you'll be redefining standard definitions in attempting to make your crackpot theory work, just as every other crackpot does... oh, wait... you already have with your "electric arcs". :-[

In other words, you're a waste of valuable time. You might have a gander at just how good I am at destroying crackpot theories... Wheelerism, for instance. Have a good day.

Rass

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #26,  »
Cycle, you are being silly. Misinterpret and continue to nitpick. I don't care. Continue to ignore the importance of the heavy elements. Continue to have faith that our Sun is 99% Helium and Hydrogen. Good luck building a working fusion device.


~Russ

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #27,  »
easy dose it, we can all agree do disagree :)

keep pressing on! ~Russ

Cycle

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #28,  »
Quote from Rass on February 3rd, 2017, 06:58 AM
Cycle, you are being silly.
You are being more than silly... you're espousing the "expanding earth" crackpottery, claiming the core of our sun is chock full of heavy metals, redefining standard definitions and claiming there is some conspiracy to hide "the truth" from us, for some vague reason... all while sidestepping the mountain of evidence that you're wrong, and while "conveniently" forgetting that LENR research has already been done successfully, and the exact technical requirements to get it to work published openly.
Quote from Rass on February 3rd, 2017, 06:58 AM
Misinterpret and continue to nitpick.
Is that what you call utterly refuting the "electric sun" silliness you espouse? Shall we start in on your "expanding earth" and "hopping dinosaurs" next? Because I'm in an argumentative mood.
Quote from Rass on February 3rd, 2017, 06:58 AM
I don't care.
Obviously you care so deeply that you continue to defend this nitwittery even in the face of multiple examples of being wrong. You won't figure out LENR from studying the sun, there are two completely different nuclear fusion processes going on for the sun and LENR... and especially so if you continue to insist that the sun is full of heavy metals and electricity.
Quote from Rass on February 3rd, 2017, 06:58 AM
Continue to ignore the importance of the heavy elements. Continue to have faith that our Sun is 99% Helium and Hydrogen.
You mean the trace amounts of elements heavier than carbon? Oh, do please tell us all exactly how important 0.04% of silicon and 0.1% of iron is upon stellar fusion in a proton-proton fusion star. Be exacting in detailing the effects you've observed.
Quote from Rass on February 3rd, 2017, 06:58 AM
Good luck building a working fusion device.
That's not my bag... I'm attempting to figure out how the universe works so we can extract energy from the QVZPE field... there are already two such methods that don't violate QM (one of which I conceived, one of which is known to work and is patented by Haisch and Moddel).

Garage-based cold fusion won't work... the technical requirements to get excess energy are so rigorous that even the Naval Research Labs had to run over 300 experiments before they got it working. Yeah, LENR works, they know how to do it now, there's no need to do further experimentation. They achieved over 10,000 joules of excess energy from less than 1 gram of cathode material.

http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/10/06/louis-dechario-of-us-naval-sea-systems-command-navsea-on-replicating-pons-and-fleischmann/Strange that on one hand, you decry NASA as liars, yet you rely upon their images as "proof" of whatever it is you're trying to prove. That's something I've noticed other crackpots doing, as well.

Diadon

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #29,  »
Quote from Cycle on February 3rd, 2017, 05:14 PM
Garage-based cold fusion won't work... the technical requirements to get excess energy are so rigorous that even the Naval Research Labs had to run over 300 experiments before they got it working. Yeah, LENR works, they know how to do it now, there's no need to do further experimentation. They achieved over 10,000 joules of excess energy from less than 1 gram of cathode material.
I will take that challenge Cycle :)

Rass

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #30,  »Last edited
If the conditions for LENR exist in any planet's core then the same physics should apply. Is that not logical? If the build up of transmuted elements can occur, should we not consider its consequences? especially if there is a time scale in the billions of years? I didn't discover the expanding Earth model. I am merely suggesting it as a possibility due to some basic deductions. Like the deduction that dinosaurs weighing many tons (heaviest known dino is 96 tons!) wouldn't be able to travel in today's gravity. In addition to the deduction that shrinking dinosaurs into birds must have came out of necessity. Basic evolution in response to gradual change in environmental conditions over millions of years!  Expanding Earth is just icing on the cake. It complements the liquid-plasma model. There are many consistent observations here covering various scientific disciplines. I may not have all of the answers but coincidence at this point is extremely unlikely.

That last attached image is highly relevant. If you look at it from a circuit perspective we have thin metal filaments (coronal loops & other phenomenon) carrying huge electric currents. Guess what happens when you pulse a huge amount of current down a thin filament?
Now check out the Z-Machine.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaopaLJk3-Y

 If you still doubt the electrical nature of the Sun, I encourage you to review all of the TRACE (& other satellite)  videos that show it in grand detail. The crazy magnetic fields alone should be sufficient evidence.
Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #31,  »Last edited
Quote from Cycle on February 3rd, 2017, 05:14 PM
Garage-based cold fusion won't work... the technical requirements to get excess energy are so rigorous that even the Naval Research Labs had to run over 300 experiments before they got it working. Yeah, LENR works, they know how to do it now, there's no need to do further experimentation. They achieved over 10,000 joules of excess energy from less than 1 gram of cathode material.

http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/10/06/louis-dechario-of-us-naval-sea-systems-command-navsea-on-replicating-pons-and-fleischmann/
I am sure the Navy has no problem sharing advanced fusion technologies with the world. They would never hoard it for themselves. They would never mislead us. NASA is also our friend. -Sarcasm.


"heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible" Kelvin, Lord William Thomson


brettly

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #32,  »
I've leanred quite alot about the sun, just from this short thread, its good to have different views, nothing wrong with that.
Its good to get some perspective also, we are privilaged generation, that we are witnessing new knowledge as it unfolds, the idea that there is a man-made satellite orbiting the earth, its purpose being to gather information on the sun is amazing in itself. Then to think that this massive structure is one hell of a light display, completely dwarfing anything us humans are capable of creating, and then to think there are trillions upon trillions of these structures out there, it should humble all of us.

Rass

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #33,  »Last edited
The T-Rex evolved large hind legs with a skeletal structure geared for hopping. Can you imagine a 5-12 ton dinosaur hopping around in today's gravity?





“When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” - Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, 1991

Ris

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #34,  »
You can do a simple test to prove whether earth is growing.

Rass

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #35,  »Last edited
Quote from Ris on February 6th, 2017, 02:34 AM
You can do a simple test to prove whether earth is growing.
We can take all of the continents and fit them together like a puzzle. This is an observation anyone can perform. In the beginning stages, our planet was likely completely covered in water (fish fossils were found in the highest mountains). Plenty of hydrogen from the sea for LENR. Makes me wonder if running out of water can kill a planet's core. Mars has a weak EM field which indicates an inactive core.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNhCWasoxLw&t=571s

I don't have a precise number at the moment but ~200% total growth was estimated based on how the continents fit. So that's 200% growth over 4.543 billion years. The Earth's current diameter is  12.74E6 meters. Diameter in the beginning (estimated) ~ 6.37E6 meters. For simplicity, let's assume growth was linear.  I really doubt it was linear since we know surface area is an important component to LENR. 6.37E6 meters / 4.543E9 years = 1.402 millimeters per year.

According to recent measurements, America moves one inch away from Europe and Africa every year on average. Emphasis is from me, hint  ;) . This rules out linear growth. We can probably take a look at existing LENR experiments and find a formula to estimate growth but we are missing the surface area of the Earth's core.

The standard model will explain this phenomenon as a result from subduction. Should we ignore how all of the continents fit together like a puzzle? Should we ignore where all of the new material(magma) originates and how the pressures are generated? Basic mass displacement applies. It would be awesome if we can monitor total overall diameter of our planet. Do you have a method?

Source:
https://www.quora.com/Is-North-and-South-America-slowly-moving-towards-or-away-from-the-European-landmass-How-many-millions-of-years-until-they-join-together


brettly

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #36,  »
the link you give ( which you call source) is talking about standard theory for plate movements,
not expanding earth, plate tectonics and movements seems pretty well established theory.

Cycle

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #37,  »Last edited by Cycle
For crying out loud...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epwg6Od49e8


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXjXFKdRb7g


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQAc5HpvyEY


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbIJ_GIaGUo


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf0o9ocmQwE

If you're Neal Adams, you should be ashamed by your attempt at using the forum to promote your nuttery-for-profit via DVD sales on your website.

If you're Neal Adams, you should be doubly-ashamed at having tried to censor scientific truth, all while you claimed some vague conspiracy to censor the truth, which only you hold, and which anyone can get their hands on via DVD for a small payment at your website... as evidenced by your attempt at having that last video removed.

Remember, matter has 25 terawatt-hours of energy bound up in each kilogram... so the "expanding earth" nuttery must account for a tremendous amount of energy. Earth weighs 5,974,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms... the "expanding earth" proponents claim the planet expanded by 1/SQRT(3) from its original mass, so the original mass according to them was 3,449,090,508,138,824,317,177,654 kilograms, for a difference of 2,524,909,491,861,175,682,822,346 kilograms.

Thus, it would require 63,122,737,296,529,392,070,558,650 terawatt-hours worth of energy to create that mass. This means that at current solar insolation levels, it would require 708,812,898,763,285,084 years to accumulate that heat. That's older than the universe.

That's equivalent to ~92 years worth of the total solar output of the sun.

But let's go with your figures... "So that's 200% growth over 4.543 billion years." That means we have to account for 2,987,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms of mass. This means you'd need a solar insolation rate that is 26,299,801,893,022 times higher than current solar insolation, meaning the sun would be so large and energetic as to be physically impossible. Even Population III (very low metallicity) stars at the start of the Stelliferous Era were only a maximum of ~1000 times larger than our sun, and only ~17 times hotter... and they burned out far faster than your quoted 4.543 billion years, which is why a sun putting out 26,299,801,893,022 times as much energy would be physically impossible. That solar insolation rate would also be sufficient to plasmize the entire planet.

We know the planet receives approximately 10,166 terawatts per hour, which would be sufficient to create 406 kilograms per hour... except the planet, being in radiative equilibrium, is radiating back to that infinite heat sink of space the same amount of energy... so we can't use the sun as a source of the mass-energy.

We also know the sun was cooler in the distant past, and increases its solar output over time:


We also know that if the planet had been smaller in the past, it would have received less solar irradiance due to less area for that sunlight to fall on.

So let's look at Uranium-235 decay, the by-far largest contributor to core heat... U-235 contains 2e13 joules per kilogram, requiring 8.15e18 kilograms of U-235. That's 1.4 ppm concentration by mass of U-235, throughout every kilogram of earth's matter... and that's doable... except natural Uranium is 99.3% U-238... so you'd require instead 200 ppm of U-235 to generate that amount of energy... enough to irradiate everything to death in short order, given that radiation levels would be ~5000% higher than current background.

And that's not to mention that mantle rock composition is iron and silicate, which is why olivine is often found around lava outflows... and that's incompatible with Uranium. The olivine can't hold Uranium in its crystalline structure, so the Uranium is concentrated into crustal rocks by magma flow. That's why Uranium concentration in mantle rock is measured in ppb (parts per billion)... so that avenue is scotched, as well.

How about Uranium in the core? Well, we know from seismic wave propagation tests that the core consists primarily of iron, nickel, silicon and sulfur. And we also know the Uranium concentration ranges from 1/100 to 1/10,000 of crustal Uranium concentration. We also know that the only naturally-occurring materials which can thermalize neutrons from un-enriched U-235 fission such that it reaches criticality are graphite and heavy water... and there isn't enough of either in the core to sustain criticality. So random fission events of U-235 can't be the power source, either.

So... just where is all this mass coming from? Did you not know the planet is losing mass, to the tune of approximately 50,000 tons per year?
http://scitechdaily.com/earth-loses-50000-tonnes-of-mass-every-year/

Did you not know that the heat loss from the core amounts (in mass-energy equivalency terms) to 16 tons per year?

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-arguments-against-expanding-earth-theory
Quote
*Studies of earthquake waves passing through the interior of the earth showed that significant parts were molten and much of the rest was only semi-solid.

* Gravity studies showed that there was barely any excess gravity above continents, so they had to be floating like icebergs.

* Estimates of radioactive heat showed that it would bring the interior to the point not just of melting but convecting, which would tend to stir up the innards and drag the surface along as well.

* Studies at the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and similar places showed that there was a line of volcanoes on the seafloor, the sediment got steadily thicker away from the ridge, and the magnetic fields frozen into the rocks were symmetrical on either side, so new ocean floor must have been getting created.

* At the same time other places (like the Himalayas) fitted the idea of plates coming together, and other places fitted a scenario plates sliding edgewise. These two didn't really fit an expanding earth.

* No one ever found a convincing mechanism for the earth to expand.
Stop wasting everyone's time with this silliness, and get down to the business of finding how to generate clean, cheap, renewable, safe energy. That's the whole point of this forum, as detailed in the forum name.

Rass

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #38,  »Last edited
Quote from Cycle on February 6th, 2017, 08:22 PM
Stop wasting everyone's time with this silliness, and get down to the business of finding how to generate clean, cheap, renewable, safe energy. That's the whole point of this forum, as detailed in the forum name.
How some can't make the most elemental observations really blows my mind. The continents fit together to form a smaller planet. You opted to completely ignore this fact and replaced it with hypothesis and mathematical models. Best example of mental masturbation. Must feel great but accomplishes nothing.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TosyS9j4qXo


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiCMFzpMnZM

Cycle

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #39,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from Rass on February 6th, 2017, 08:48 PM
How some can't make the most elemental observations really blows my mind. The continents fit together to form a smaller planet. You opted to completely ignore this fact and replace it with hypothesis and mathematical models. Best example of mental masturbation. Must feel great but accomplishes nothing.
That "hypothesis and mathematical models'' you speak of consist of empirical observation and highly technical tests with exceeding accuracy, all corroborated by more testing and yes, mathematical models which are accurate to better than one part in 1 billion... meanwhile you're blowing up balloons with bits of construction paper taped to them and watching inaccurate animations made by a cartoonist who has a profit motive to continue spewing this whack-a-doodle hypothesization, all while you deny the ramifications of the mass-energy equivalency principle which proves that your nut-jobbery cannot reflect reality.

Rass

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #40,  »
Quote from Cycle on February 6th, 2017, 09:03 PM
your nut-jobbery cannot reflect reality.
Do the continents fit together? Yes or No? Perhaps you are living in an alternate reality where they don't. Anyone can perform this observation for themselves. It is reproducible. Observation takes priority in science. Sorry, but that is the rule.

Cycle

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #41,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from Rass on February 6th, 2017, 09:21 PM
Do the continents fit together? Yes or No? Perhaps you are living in an alternate reality where they don't. Anyone can perform this observation for themselves. It is reproducible. Observation takes priority in science. Sorry, but that is the rule.
In that animation by Neal Adams, he "conveniently" forgets the continental shelves, and while he says that he doesn't twist any land masses, nor create any new land masses, he quite obviously does both... as evidenced in the videos above.

The land masses used to fit together... because of plate tectonics, they have since moved. In fact, several times the continents have come together and pulled apart.

The United States sits on two previously-continental plates... but those plates fused. This rift formed during the breakup of the supercontinent Rodinia in the Neoproterozoic Era (about 750 million years ago), then fused, leaving a weak spot in the crust. You know it today as the New Madrid fault line. It generates some of the most energetic earthquakes known to man, and in fact did just that 200 years ago, in 1811 and 1812.

From ~145 MYA to ~75 MYA, the middle of North America was seismically active... the Farallon tectonic plate was subducting beneath the North American plate at a steep angle, causing the Western Interior Seaway along the middle of the US, an ocean which stretched from the Gulf of Mexico to the Arctic Ocean.

From ~80 MYA to ~55 MYA, plate collision built the Rocky Mountains as the Farallon Plate (and the Kulu plate in Canada) subducted beneath the North American plate. The North American plate was really deep just north of the Colorado plateau, so the Farallon plate hit it at such an angle that both were pushed upward, creating the Rockies. Further south, the North American plate wasn't as thick, so the Farallon plate slid beneath it, leaving the Colorado plateau relatively undisturbed. Much of the western US is the remnants of the terranes carried by the Farallon oceanic plate and now accreted to the North American plate. The Farallon plate itself is nearly completely subducted now. So the Rockies and westward were created from the ancient islands that resided upon the Farallon plate.

You'll also note the Pacific plate extends all the way across to New Zealand, generating earthquakes where it meets the Australian plate. The Pacific plate rides over the Australian plate in the south of NZ, and subducts under in the north, generating a condition whereby the plates are gradually locking together, making for very powerful earthquakes.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6Nyr78Mqyg

None of that can be explained by your "expanding earth" silliness, and in fact, the documented Western Interior Seaway (which is why I saw seashells in the limestone where I grew up, which is currently more than a mile above sea level) isn't even represented in the Neal Adams videos, nor is the accretion of large sections of the western US from islands residing upon the Farallon plate as it subducted beneath the North American plate... he just assumes that North America was always its same shape.

So... explain the formation of mountains in your "expanding earth" nutjob hypothesis... you can't. There is no mechanism in your hypothesis (it doesn't rise to the level of a theory, after all) for the creation of mountains. So either those mountains have existed since the planet was created (which means you deny erosion takes place), or your hypothesis fails.

Explain the upheaval of land around New Zealand (ironically after an earthquake brought about by plate tectonics, quite ironically on an island built from land upheaval due to plate tectonics and the volcanoes that exist at the edges of the tectonic plates)... you can't. There is no mechanism in your hypothesis for the genesis of earthquakes or land upheaval. Thus, your hypothesis fails.


https://youtu.be/Lno8Rpbe57c


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRdXmS-LTP4

Rass

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #42,  »Last edited
Expanding Earth is controversial since it challenges the mainstream model. I totally get it. It was included in this thread so others can follow where my research has led me. I prefer to build frameworks grounded on solid observations and not mathematical models. Only with practical experimentation may we get to the truth of the matter.

Cycle

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #43,  »
Quote from Rass on February 6th, 2017, 09:51 PM
Expanding Earth is controversial since it<SMACK>
doesn't reflect reality.
Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #44,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from Rass on February 5th, 2017, 02:10 PM
The T-Rex evolved large hind legs with a skeletal structure geared for hopping. Can you imagine a 5-12 ton dinosaur hopping around in today's gravity?
The largest modern elephant was 12 tons. Do they hop? No. But then, they get along just fine with earth's gravity, don't they? Sure they do.

And now, we'll finish this bit of off-topic drama off once and for all... dinosaurs were not "super heavy" despite being "super large". Remember, it's been found that modern birds are descendants of the dinosaurs... and birds have much lighter bones without sacrificing bone strength.

In a 2011 paper on sauropod gigantism, paleontologist P. Martin Sander and coauthors briefly debunked the proposal that Jurassic gravity was weaker. It's a function of their anatomy, not of gravity. Even the largest terrestrial dinosaur (Supersaurus) likely didn't weigh over 40 tons.

These light bones allowed the dinosaurs to evolve the long necks they had, without unduly stressing the bone due to leverage. Those long necks also accounted for much of the total length of the dinosaur... so while they looked big, it was a lot of neck and not a lot of weight. They also usually had really small heads and teeth, which were light. Just like birds, they didn't chew their food... they relied upon stones in their gizzard to grind the food up, just as birds do... if you've ever wondered why a chicken eats pebbles, now you know. They're called gastroliths, and they've been found in among dinosaur fossils.

As for the "breathing through a long straw" problem... the sauropods had air sacs in their necks, which acted to allow intake of a large volume of air through a narrow windpipe without tracheal dead space that would have caused some of the air to be re-breathed. Breathe in, expand the neck air sacs, contract the neck air sacs to force that air into the lungs, breathe out with the neck air sacs contracted so all the air gets expelled. Modern birds have the same feature (although most have the air sacs in their bodies, rather than in their necks), which they use to breathe more efficiently at altitude. Those air sacs are auxiliary air pumps to force more air through the lungs.

Now, let's not let OSE turn into OU... let's get down to the business of discovering and implementing some method of providing clean, cheap, safe, affordable, renewable power to the planet.

Rass

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #45,  »
Pay no attention, just gonna drop this link here for some future reference. It's all just one big whopping coincidence of course. Let the maths and computer simulations tell us what reality is instead of observation.

New Research Suggests Earth's Mantle Might Be Hotter Than Anyone Expected
http://www.sciencealert.com/earth-mantle-is-60-degrees-hotter-than-anyone-ever-expected


Cycle

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #46,  »
Next thing you know, you'll be emphatically stating that because the Earth has a Schwarzschild radius of 1 cm, that there's a tiny black hole in the core keeping it hot. :roll:

Axil


Rass

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #48,  »Last edited
Quote from Axil on March 14th, 2017, 09:02 PM
Liquid Metallic Hydrogen: A Building Block for the Liquid Sun
Great find Axil. Dr. Robitaille is a pioneer in this area. It can take many years to make the proper connections and form a clear picture. I believe he is closer to the truth than anyone else.

Cycle

Re: NASA's greatest lie..our Sun.
« Reply #49,  »Last edited by Cycle
At time ~9:00, he's wrong... since liquids have little shear strength, they cannot support transverse waves. Nor can gasses. Thus, the picture he showed cannot be a transverse wave.

Hmmm... now what could mediate a transverse wave other than a liquid or gas, which is also prevalent in the sun? Perhaps a magnetic field? Or didn't he realize that all electromagnetic energy propagating from the sun does so in the form of transverse waves?

Light is, after all, a double transverse wave with the electric and magnetic fields at 90 degrees. You can prove this for yourself by polarizing light... in order for light to be polarizable, it must be a transverse wave.

The only other explanation is that it's not a transverse wave at all... it's a circular wave, otherwise known as a surface wave... it's not just a surface phenomenon, it's a long tube of longitudinal disruption from the solar flare, terminating at the optical surface (not a physical surface) of the sun, whereupon it becomes a surface wave.

It's somewhat akin to the ocean... if you have an undersea earthquake, the wave will travel in the depths as a longitudinal wave... once that longitudinal wave breaches the surface, it becomes a surface wave. You're seeing the 'breaking waves' of those sub-surface longitudinal waves breaching the optical surface of the sun.

Since the sun is a gas, and we know that thermal upwelling is occurring, it's somewhat akin to having a thrust fault suddenly thrust upward under the ocean... you have a giant bolus of water thrust upward in a longitudinal wave. It breaches the surface and that water rolls away from the upwardly-thrusting region via surface waves.