Gee, this paragraph would look different if the true multiplier was 11 million instead of 100, wouldn't it? Apparently the current solar radius is 695,000 km, which my calculator claims gives a solar volume of 1.406 x 1018 km cubed. Times 11 million would be 1.547 x 1025 km cubed for a solar volume at primoridial c time.
But I want the back-then solar radius. So times .75 (4/3 written upside-down) and divided by p, then cube-rooted gives 154,566,615.4 km. I want that in miles, so we multiply by .621 to get 95,985,868.15. The sun has swelled to about three million miles beyond the Earth's current orbit. It not only fills the daytime sky, it fills the night-time sky. The literature of the time probably would have noticed this.
The Earth would not exist. Even if my calculations are off somewhere, the continued existence of the two inner planets Venus and Mercury is particularly hard to explain if the Sun was ever that much bigger than it is now. You can't swell the Sun that much before Mercury is eaten, never to return. That we have a planet Mercury tells me the Sun was never that big.
So for tonight, I think the excess energy is staying within the star.
Absolutely not. No star will stay at disequilibrium for long. All the stars we ever see are at equilibrium under their current conditions. The obvious exception would be a star undergoing supernova at the time.
You and Setterfield are trying to simply throw a blanket of opacity over the Sun. You can't do that. Opacity increases, yes. As a star fuses heavier and heavier elements ("metals" in astro jargon), the opacity of the stellar gas indeed does rise--slowly. The star becomes a red giant. Opacity is indeed the mechanism of the swelling. The bigger atoms have more ability to trap electrons, become partially un-ionized, and thus to resolve photons.
With VSL in play, with c increased by 10, we have a star 100 times less dense without volume change (because space is less granular, higher resolution, and mass and density decrease inverse to c^2). But it also is putting out 10 times the photons moving 10 times as fast. These factors overcome the factor of 100 times fewer photons, so the photon output is the same as the original comparison star.
No. This is what I thought I was seeing a long time ago and opacity won't do that. Opacity makes more photons and redder, not fewer photons which ever way you try to go. And the energy of the star is going to get out. The star is very hot and under pressure. Space is very cold and has no pressure. Opacity just makes the gas float farther out from the center as a storm of photons slams into the particles.
I'm just cherry-picking the things that jump out at me in your post for now. Aftershocks may be expected continue for days. So I'll skip over some for now. Down the page, this hit my eyes.
My incomprehensible paragraph was intended not to explain the excess energy, but the reason the excess energy does not create major redshift, which point you seem to permit.
Since I didn't understand your paragraph at all, I wasn't aware of just what exactly you were explaining with it. Excess energy should not happen. OK, across quantum jumps in a Setterfieldian world it is somehow allowable, but this is within a quantum jump and conservation of energy is being violated by solar fusion.
Never mind the number of atoms and the number of photons involved. I'm now looking at the per-fusion-event balance. We are fusing atoms with a tiny fraction of the mass of modern ones but getting out photons with quite a large fraction of the modern energy. That's where the books don't balance. This is bad.
People come on the Internet--even onto FR sometimes--hawking free energy schemes. One I recall involved using some kind of catalytic process to break down water into hydrogen and oxygen with a lower-than-straight-electrolysis energy cost. The device produced a mild energy surplus by then burning the hydrogen and oxygen for energy. It was ready for investors to get in on the ground floor.
Apparently, you're the guy THAT guy was looking for.
My statement about the datapoint chart was about the datapoints, not the curve.
The existence of the datapoints is not in dispute. The curve is controversial.
I'll leave your summation for later. I have more than I like to have on tap for today.
I meant that this is in the interval BETWEEN quantum jumps. It is explicitly stated that energy conservation holds between jumps. The rule appears to be violated here, big time.
This is not a lawyerly nitpick. Revising the paper to remove the contradicted statements will not suffice. We really do not observe free energy.
But, yet again, if you DO balance the books on energy, the emerging photons are infra-infra-infrared, vastly longer wave than now. No eyes on Earth could possibly see using them.
LOL.
Radiation pressure comes from the transfer of momentum from a photon to a massive particle. It isn't really the total Energy (E = hc/l) of the photon that provides the push, it's the momentum = h/l. Because of the way hc = constant in Setterfield terms, the energy and momentum of a photon are now bizarrely decoupled. A green photon in early days has no momentum compared to now, h being so much tinier than now. There is no c in the formula to counterbalance.
So there's less momentum to do the pushing. What has changed about the about the mass to be pushed?
The mass of a massive particle goes down with c squared back through time. There are two things we're going to do with the mass. One is accelerate it. That is, we're going to change its current momentum. The other is we're going to lift it some distance against the resistance of gravity until its new momentum is lost and it starts to fall back again.
Mass in the formula f = ma is a resistance to acceleration. It takes more force (torque) to get a fully-loaded 18-wheeler off the drag strip starting line than it does a motorcycle. Because of the low mass of early-universe particles, they're a snap to get moving.
You can isolate this property from what we call "gravitational mass." Out in the depths of space, everything is weightless but it still has mass. You smack into something, it resists acceleration according to its mass.
If you swat a fly (never mind how it got out there), it is accelerated rapidly away from you while you are microscopically accelerated in the opposite direction. You don't notice much acceleration because of your mass compared to the fly.
So, anyway, in the early c days, if a photon smacks into a smallish particle of matter, it sends it flying 11 million times better than in the same situation now. The photons have lost momentum inversely with c, but the massive particle has lost resistance to acceleration inversely with c squared.
That's right. The changes don't even cancel (a c-squared change the wrong way and a c change to mitigate). The problem is worse by another factor of c. That's what I was figuring earlier.
But I forgot something. The solar particles in question are in a strong gravitational field. Gravity is cancelling the mass difference. All of it. That's right. Gm = constant. We did that to keep orbits the same.
Now the photons have less swat to lift the gas particles, but the gas won't fly up much except for the fact there are 11 million times more photons banging into it. But against THAT, 11 million times more particles than now have the property of opacity in the first place so there's more to lift.
So now we got rid of the c-squared factor. We have 11 million more photons, each with almost the same energy as now, but tiny momentum compared to now.
One thing this means is the opacity doesn't red-shift the light very much when it eats the momentum. There isn't much to eat.
That in turn means that the "opacity" you get by adding a crazy number of "opaque" particles almost isn't opacity at all. The "opaque" particle absorbs the photon, re-emits a photon of almost the same wavelength as before and its own momentum is barely changed. Yes, there's a scattering effect but they're all still going to find their way out. This isn't doing its job.
That alone means there's still a problem and this isn't working, but let's never mind that just for now.
If we ignore the problems already noted with the low-momentum escape clause, you are perhaps in the clear if I'm keeping score accurately. The star doesn't have to swell too awfully much, maybe. Everything has nominally canceled.
I thought at first that we had lost the equivalence principle between inertial and gravitational mass here. That among other things is why a feather and a cannonball fall at the same speed on Earth in a vacuum's chamber. But that's probably hyperbole.
What has happened is that radiation pressure doesn't work the same in low-gravity environments across quantum jumps. If you go that way, that has to be an easily falsifiable prediction.
I suspect that we see radiation pressure events in astronomical objects, some of them under low gravity. Nebulae and so forth. Old supernova remnant puffs in the neighborhood of stars, maybe in the Magellanic Clouds, for instance. Perhaps different things farther out.
Thus, we could see the rules changing for low gravity radiation pressure if the rules did change. I suspect we would have noticed by now.
This mess just ain't workin' for me.
All the stars we ever see are at equilibrium under their current conditions. Of course, and as c gradually changes everything stays in equilibrium. The Stellar History link above suggests the excess energy is partly retained as internal radiation pressure, and partly dissipated by convection and other transfer into heat and kinetic energy.
Opacity makes more photons and redder, not fewer photons. I think you mean, increased opacity with VSL permits more and redder photons (because opacity doesn't "make" photons). Of course it does, my point was that opacity means fewer photons are getting out in balance with more being generated.
We are fusing atoms with a tiny fraction of the mass of modern ones but getting out photons with quite a large fraction of the modern energy. Of course, because the atoms fused have increased velocity and thus the same formation energy, so naturally produce photons with similar energy.
The existence of the datapoints is not in dispute. Of course, and the datapoints show that constant c (or h) is statistically rejected. You can pick your own curve.