The way you keep saying this doesn't work for me. The photon in flight at a quantum jump is more or less unaffected. hc is a constant (I think!) and lambda will not change. Perhaps you think its energy drops because c has gone down by some amount and h (which moves in such a way as to cancel) doesn't matter anymore since it was used to determine emission properties. If that's what you mean, I don't buy it. "h" wouldn't be in there if it were only a property of the emitting body and not of the photon. It's in there because h matters not only at emission but at absorption. The photon is the same photon. The rules for how it is emitted and absorbed are supposedly transparent to the quantum jumps.
Perhaps we're talking past each other, so I'll try restating in different terms. A photon in flight will after a quantum jump look "redder" than a photon emitted by the same process after the jump, yes. It will have the energy implied by its wavelength, however. The relationship of photon wavelength to energy does not change as I understand it. The relationship of c to energy is of course variable, as c is changing like mad in ways canceled by changes to h.
Therefore we agree the old photon had "almost the same energy as now". I had that wrong at first.
Which is still baffling because there's less mass (apparently a lot less) available to generate the photons. But maybe you answer this down the post where I haven't read yet.
Other side issues: ... For example, I was about to misstep and say theoretically h should not invert c, but once again I was struck that by observation h does invert c.
At least in earlier versions of the theory, it was explicitly stated that hc was a constant. As you go back in time, h gets tinier. I haven't noticed that as changed but perhaps need to recheck.
You are right, the energy of the sum of photons is greatly increased (but I was right, individual photon energy is conserved).
I tingle with anticipation.
I agree "it's far from clear why" there is low redshift. It appears to me, as one who does not understand much quantum theory, that as the granularity h increases with time, the atomic structure undergoes quantum resettlings, which I regard as compactings... [Long, long snip]... (If all this works out someday we will be ironically calling the quantum of 63.74c-now = 1.91x10^10m/s the "Setterfield constant"!)
Between how that paragraph is almost incomprehensible and per your own estimation likely wrong, I'm going to regard the large excess energy of photon emission as "unexplained free energy." The books would balance better if we didn't have it. I'm sure it's there simply so Adam won't be blind as I objected in my 2000 paper and likely others have done before. Anyway, we've established that it's there.
But since it's there we have all these excess photons just so we can shorten radioactive half lives inversely with c. (Or whatever exactly is being done to recruit radiometric dating to the Young Earth side of things.) We didn't really have to do THAT, either, except it must have been just too tempting. So the photons are only redishifted by 1.5 but, Gads! We have scads!
I still think "the decrease in density lowers the luminous energy by two factors, which are can-celled by the increase in lightspeed and the increase in total photon output."
I missed this earlier. Yes, if the Sun blows up really big, it gets less dense and the fires cool and it maybe shrinks a bit. In real life changes don't happen that fast in the first place so there's probably no need for the rubber band to yank it back.
Also, to the extent that lower density turns down the wick on the solar lamp, your attempts to make the Sun look old by burning up an excess of nuclear fuel are damped by just as much. How far there do you want to go?
I wish to remind you of the size of your energy excess from the photons. It is in the millions because you are aging the Sun and Earth billions of years in mere hundreds. You can do this or not do it, but any way you go there's a very high hurdle. For now, you're biting the bullet and doing this.
Any compensation for the huge magnitude of the excess energy introduced by high reaction rates needs to be as big as the problem. But changes on a similar scale in density or opacity or some other mundane property would be ... just nuts. Your presentation is polite and ever-so earnest, but you are not so much addressing this as descending into shuck, jive, and double-talk.
Are you saying the sun is a million times less dense, or a million times more opaque? OK, increasing opacity will create decreases in density. Maybe half a million times less opaque and half a million times less dense? There's a big problem here to get rid of.
Applying your stellar structure source to the changes in stars, it stated that decreasing opacity resolves to decreasing radius and volume, but also that increasing density resolves to increasing volume, so the volume and radius changes cancel and are not a factor.
Volume and radius on a sphere are going to change in concert. The formula is
V = (4/3)pr3.
Never mind that. The density/opacity relationship is what I thought you might be referring to. (Note that I'm just commenting as I read along here.)
These kind of "compensating factors" are on the wrong scale to help you. You can't blow the Sun up a million times as big. The Earth is too close.
I don't think that the photons are carrying "less light" so that many of them constitute one "optical photon" (neat concept, though).
I don't know what you're saying. I once speculated that the opacity was being invoked to somehow blueshift a whole lot of red photons into one blue one, but we've established you don't need that--the photons aren't so very red--and opacity doesn't do that. It works the other way. It absorbs a lot of photon energy, turns some of it into mechanical motion, and ultimately outputs a higher number of redder photons. You still have the same amount of energy to deal with. A star is going to be at some kind of equilibrium.
I read that electron scattering is dissipating (all or part of) the photon increase and that may contribute if I knew more about it.
You can't scatter the energy away in such a way that it isn't ultimately being radiated outward. This is wrong and naive.
The above is just a first reaction and I'm still digesting a lot of material. I'll probably be revisiting this for days yet.
They did have to do that, or the observed decay rate of SN1987A would be wrong. This is the same as the frame-rate argument that I got confused about. If you don't speed up decay-rate by the same amount as you speed up c then you won't see the emmissions from SN1987A decaying at normal modern speeds, but you do. I felt that speeding up decay-rate proportionately as c expands is just post-hoc-rationalisation to justify the observations, but MJN says not. I lack the physics to argue the point.