The sun is likely a dense ball of degenerate gas that is still in the process of cooling.
Do you have any evidence to support your claim that this is likely, or even possible?
Using an estimated value of the solar luminosity assuming the black body law and estimated distance to the sun gives an energy loss rate. Estimating the specific heat capacity of the sun as that of an ideal gas (an awful approximation, but it shows the plausibility), one can estimate the needed density of sun if the energy loss isn't to lead to a significant change in temperature change over ~4.5 billion years. (A big change in solar temperature would change the solar spectrum, meaning plants wouldn't be able to photosynthesize.) This turns out to be a huge number comparable to the estimates of density in RET white dwarfs and neutron stars. Thus, we are lead to the conclusion that the sun is composed of very dense matter (assuming it doesn't have a power source of its own).
So no evidence. Noted. Do come back when you have anything to support your claim.
Speculating on the nature of the sun is just that, speculation. I can tell you that my idea is consistent with known laws of physics and observation.
Well, if you're just speculating you should say so.
Since you can tell us that your idea is consistent with know laws of physics and observation, I'd like you to tell us how you managed to review all the known laws against your idea.
Let's start with the mass of the Sun. What is it?
Let's start with the color of the Sun. What is it?
From there tell us the surface temperature of the Sun.
Tell us what light frequencies plants currently use for photosynthesis.
Tell us what light frequencies they have used over time.
Tell us why any shift in the Solar spectrum would prevent plant photosynthesis. (By the way, I know your claim is false, so go ahead and recant your claim to speed this along.)
Stop back after fixing your error, and I'll continue to demonstrate just how wrong you are in other regards.