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."
I found a nice little lecture on stellar internal dynamics and where opacity fits in.
Stellar Structure. Here's a part of it, but I recommend visiting the site for the whole thing.
The structure of stars is determined by 5 relations or physical concepts:
- hydrostatic equilibrium - Most stars, like the Sun, are not expanding nor contracting. They are stable in size. Therefore, this fact means that the internal pressure must balance the weight of the material above it (self-gravity)
gravity compression is balanced by pressure outward
Greater gravity compresses the gas, making it denser and hotter, so the outward pressure increases
- thermal equilibrium - the amount of energy generated in the core of a star by thermonuclear fusion must equal the amount radiated away (the only place for the energy to go is outward)
- opacity - how fast energy is radiated is determined by the resistance of the stellar envelope to the flow of photons. If a star has low opacity, it can radiate its energy fast and its temperature and pressure will be lower = smaller radii
At a star's surface the energy is released to form the spectrum of the star.
- energy transport - how energy is transported from the core to the stellar surface determines the surface temperature of a star (its color)
There are three ways to transfer energy; conduction, convection and radiation. Conduction, the collisional transfer of energy between atoms, only occurs between solids (such as a hot pan and your hand), so is not found in stars. Only convection and radiation transfer are important in stars and the opacity determines which method is used. When the temperature is high and all the atoms are stripped of their electrons, the opacity is low and radiation transfer is dominant.
When the temperature drops, such as in the outer layers of a stars interior, the protons and electrons recombine to form atoms and the opacity goes up. High opacity slows the transfer of energy by radiation, so bubbles form. These bubbles are hot and low in density, thus starting a convective flow.
Whether convection or radiation transport is used depends on the temperature make-up of the stellar interior. When the changes in temperature are sharp, convection is used. Think of the photons as grains of sand on a pile. If the pile is low, radiation is used. If the pile is high, the sand tumbles down, convection is used.
When you play with opacity, you mess with the stellar radius and the surface color, yes. Opacity makes a star's surface even redder (and bigger). It's a red-shifting agent, not a blue-shifting agent.
It looks very like what I was imagining. The radius increases when you increase opacity because the radiation pressure on the opaque, energy-absorbing gas pushes the gas out and swells the star. Convection currents carry hot pockets to a boiling, seething surface.
I don't see this helping Setterfield at all, as his light is already too red.
VSL has really matured since I first learned it. Instead of a simple statistical observation of history, it has become a robust predictive model. The key to this change was Setterfield's simplifying the theory, at the top of
Implications to the statement that 'all "constants" which carry units of "per second" have been decreasing since the beginning of the universe. Constants with dimensions of "seconds" have been increasing inversely.' ("Decreasing" means as a trend.)
This first seemed fuzzy to me; for example, why would atomic rest mass vary? Well, because mass is measured by acceleration, which requires s^-2, a temporal factor. Now I can see this is the crux and simplicity of the theory.
The reason this step is ingenious is that math is based on reality and so all math formulas end up with precisely correct units that precisely cancel. The first time we ever heard of kg-m^2/s^2 we all sneered, but it works because of the math, which means the explanatory narrative will follow. C is ultimately inverse with t, atomic time, with ct the real constant in case you miss constants. All measurements of time vary together, so all cancellations will work out.
Setterfield is no longer playing the game of which plates to keep spinning and which need to go the other way and which are about to fall. All the plates are spinning smoothly in one stack. When I started I made the same mistake as you, of describing it in narrative to try to explain what is essentially mathematical: this led me to mistake photon energy levels. However, if you track down the equations for whatever phenomenon looks anomalous in VSL, you will find why the cancellation is appropriate. So it would be wrong for me to start pontificating about decreased momentum in photons versus decreased momentum in gases, instead we need to look up the equations.
This also effectively shuts down additional arguments based on cancelling factors. It does invite a different criticism, that the system is now too neat and pat and untestable. I think you can see the problem with that without my belaboring. The prior errors in theory are gone, so if there are no errors in observation in the multiple independent confirmations and multiple enigma resolutions, let's at least encourage others that VSL really is robust now.
Elsie, thank you so much for that encouragement! Have you considered this direct application of the above: the Light who gives Light in John 1:9 is also God and with God in John 1:1-2. "With" is "pros", meaning "facing", which in Hebrew is "lifne": in both cases it is a tactile, personal presence before someone. Now the Ten Words (which are also a creationist screed around #3-4) say you shall have no other gods "before" God, "lifne". Literally, it is: "No other gods for you can stand and face me." But God is the one who can stand and face himself, as John discovered! So here's another Messianic proof for you from the Torah: No god can stand before God, and if one ever does it proves he is God himself. Shalom.