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.
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.
When I look at how opacity got introduced, I see that Setterfield simply pulls in extant physics equations for computing the current opacity in a relatively static star at equilibrium. He has one equation for opacity from this source, one for opacity from that source, etc. Then he adds them up.
As the sources I have posted make clear, opacity has consequences he is not modeling. Opaque stars are bigger and cooler on the surface. I don't see that in his paper.
The radiation pressure on the opaque gasses push the gasses outwards. The surface is cooler because, with constant energy, a larger surface is a lower per unit of area energy surface.
Play with the opacity and you make the radius bigger. That makes the surface bigger and cooler.
It is said that when the Sun becomes a red giant (gets bigger and cooler for reasons that include increases in metal content and thus opacity) it will eat the Earth by expanding right out to our orbital radius. Setterfield with his 11-million-times boosts in c and opacity does the same thing in spades for the 6,000 year old Sun and Earth.
Only he doesn't notice. He just grabs what he wants and ignores what he wants. He blocks the light with his lightweight but opaque gas. That he incorporates into his paper. However, the blocked energy doesn't do anything to the gas. It's quite unclear where it goes. It's unaccountable. It doesn't seem to go anywhere.
Furthermore, the effect of opacity on surface-radiation wavelength is to redshift it further. I was already pretty sure the light was too red. Boosting opacity just makes it a lot redder yet. But if the Earth is well inside the solar radius, we'll be warm enough not to care.
Bad model. Bad theory.