[VadeRetro]

Setterfield's solution to this objection in 6.2 is to calculate the overall luminosity of the star to see if it is truly greater with c or if factors cancel. Using Chandrasekhar's and Schwarzschild's different luminosity formulae (equations 72 and 74), he finds that assuming a constant nuclear reaction rate, luminosity varies both with c and inverse to kappa (opacity), which varies with c^2. But the nuclear reaction rate itself also varies with c. Thus (c/c^2)c cancels in both cases and luminosity is conserved.

As I was starting to guess already, he's canceling luminosity with opacity. I don't really believe that works. Opacity can't permanently eat the energy. Maybe he's using opacity to turn--I don't know, 1000? 100?, 11,000,000?--infrared photons into one optical photon, but I doubt even that works. If nuclear reactions emit redder photons, why don't hot gasses?

I get into this and all I can do is shake my head over the hoops religious zealots will try to jump us all through so they don't have to admit difficulties.

[VadeRetro]

I could use your impressions on my impressions in post 438. In short, Setterfield is computing stellar luminosities and cancelling increases in luminosity with increases in opacity. He's using a Chandrasekhar formula but I suspect "abusing" is the better word.

[VadeRetro]

If nuclear reactions emit redder photons, why don't hot gasses?

Why don't a lot more photons knock a whole lot less massive gas particles right out of the star? Everything is much less massive, the photons--I refer to apparent momentum--and the gas particles both.

The effective momentum of a photon is given by h/l. That clearly decreases in Setterfield's world, as h goes way down as c goes way up. l increases, but not enough to offset or even matter. But the mass of the gas has gone down comparably. It won't take much whack to accelerate it and "the energy flux is the same."