"You clearly do not know what the angular momentum HYPOTHESIS is."

Obviously not, considering there is no well-documented hypothesis by that name. You could be talking about either the Nebular Hypothesis, or the non-hypothesis called the Quantum Theory of Angular Momentum. Either way, your refusal to use REAL terms is going to cause significant confusion regardless of who may be right.

"The hypothesis is that the dust from the original big bang had a momentum."

That is quite the oversimplification you have there, I hope you aren't actually going to use it as a strawman.

"Since everything in space starts to form a ball, while this dust is moving through space it starts to reduce its radius to form a ball."

Nope, stars actually form disks, not balls. Get your mind out of the gutter.

"Since the ball(of dust) radius becomes smaller angular momentum is conserved but the radius is smaller so it makes the ball spin.
That was the old hypthesiis why the planets spin, though not well explained for the sun."

Because we actually have entirely different mechanics for the sun. The only part that you seem to have gotten right so far is that every nebula starts with a certain amount of angular momentum. The Nebula Hypothesis makes very little if any effort to explain the existence of the precursor momentum, which is where the Quantum Theory of Angular Momentum picks up.

"He is and if you dared to even read the first link i gave about the spin cycle, you would know that the angular momentum HYPOTHESIS does not account for a spin cycle."

That would be because no such "hypothesis" exists to account for anything.

"As you said:
"Something in space set to spinning, by whatever means, will continue to spin unless an equal or greater amount of energy is applied to it."
That is PART of the angular momentum hypothesis and it does not include a spin cycle."

http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Services/Class/PHYS480/qm_PDF/chp5.pdf

Do the math yourself, or, if you can't; leave it to those of us who CAN.

"Now, new evidence shows that the sun has not only different spin rates which vary up and down but also a spin cycle."

Spin rates =/= Angular Momentum.

"There is no space for a spin cycle in that hypothesis, it just does not make sens and that is why it was never expected."

What? Have you ever even SEEN the math? Your fingers are writing checks that your brain can't cash.

"Read it this time before commenting:
http://news.stanford.edu/pr/00/sunspin329.html"

Oh, I read it, and it says a hell of a LOT less than what you are trying to infer from it.

""Few things in the universe seem as constant as the sun.

But now scientists have discovered that two parallel layers of gas deep beneath the solar surface are actually speeding up and slowing down in a strange, synchronous pattern.

It turns out that, as the sun rotates on its axis, one gas layer gradually spins faster while the other reduces speed.

Scientists are at a loss to explain the phenomenon, which occurs in regular 12-to-16-month cycles.""

Time for context, first let us look at the title:

"Strange 'spin cycle' inside the sun may explain sunspots, solar flares and other mysteries"

Hmm, sunspots and solar flares, not momentum.

Let what changes they found:

"Writing in the March 31 issue of the journal Science, Schou and postdoctoral fellow Rasmus Larsen point out that these unusual but predictable changes in rotational speed only occur above and below a section of the sun known as the interface layer or tachocline."

So the changes in rotational speed occur on a certain part, okay.

What was the change:

"Their results showed that the convective zone just above the tachocline gradually increased its rotational speed by about 60 feet per second between July 1996 and Feb. 1997, then slowly returned to its original velocity some eight months later."

So the convective zone ABOVE the tachocline increased speed by about 60 feet a second, if only there were some balance to conserve that angular momentum, eh?

Oh, wait:

"Meanwhile, the radiative zone just below the tachocline demonstrated the exact opposite behavior, slowing down between July and February, then gradually accelerating eight months later. "

Oh, crap, well there goes your contention...

Further:

"The discovery that the inner sun spins at different rates at different latitudes is consistent with earlier studies showing that the surface of the sun also rotates at different speeds.

For example, at the equator, it takes about 25 days for the surface of the sun to rotate on its axis, but at the poles, surface rotation requires roughly 33 days.

That's because the sun is made of gas, so different parts of its surface spin independently -- unlike the surface of Earth, Mars and other solid planets.

But why are the gas layers above and below the tachocline speeding up and slowing down at opposite rates?

Perhaps this puzzling behavior is somehow related to the mysterious forces that generate the sun's magnetic field and the 11-year sunspot cycle.

"For the interior to change speed every 11 years would make sense," notes Schou. "But a 1.3-year period was unexpected. We don't know what it means, but isn't it interesting!""

Meaning:

We expected to see variance in rotation in a gas giant, we didn't expect it to be so quick, but it might be the key to explaining some quirks in its "magnetic field"(absolutely nothing to do with its spin or momentum or the theories that govern them). They don't know why it happens, don't know exactly what it means in relation to its sunspot/solar flare activity due to magnetism, but it is interesting?

Translation:

This articles says absolutely nothing about what you seem to think it does.

"This cannot be a result of the angular momentum hypothesis alone."

Exactly right! Even if such a hypothesis DID exist, it would not explain magnetic cycles, that is an entirely separate field of study!

"It might help for its current rotation speed but not why it is spinning with a spin cycle."

Look above. Now look at what you said. Look above again. Look at what you said again. Realize that you are attempting to argue a point using completely unrelated data.

"Something more and less random is also effecting the sun spin internally, some say the magnetic fields, some hypothesize that there is a black hole at the center of the sun, some say that the black hole at the center of the galaxy plays a part too.
Research is still being done on this subject."

None of that actually matters, you are making a fallacious argument to begin with.