[PatrickHenry]

Trying to re-assign physical constants so they support Genesis is like re-plumbing my house so that the pipes form pleasing Feng Shui patterns. The problem with doing this is that the plumbing must connect to the existing faucets and drains, and ultimately to the city's water and sewer hookup locations. Those data points are, perhaps, not in the mystically proper locations my decorating whims may desire. If I re-route everything to serve my esoteric purpose, the result may be lovely, but I will no longer have any functional plumbing.

[VadeRetro]

Thanks for the 2001 Setterfield paper, MJN; my previous newest was 1999. The key sections regarding my questions, if anyone has their decoder rings with them, are Stellar Luminosities, radioactive decay processes, and Chemical Reactions. I could almost flatter myself he wrote these in reaction to my paper. (I'm sure that would truly be flattery, though.)

I've only read the section on light so far to any degree beyond a glimpse. He concludes that stellar luminosities are unaffected. Now if I could just decode how he got that ...

He seems to think increasing stellar opacities helps him in some way. I think all the energy being released inside the star has to get out if it is in equilibrium. You can heat up an opaque cloud for a while, but it starts to glow and you reach equilibrium. (This comes up in discussions of the Olber's Paradox.) However, as I say, I haven't given it a study yet.