This one I think an error. Opacity is not obtained by adding opaque particles, but by dissipating more photons by scattering and absorption (so opacity can be caused by lower density). You have described scattering correctly, but particles also absorb photons into their own kinetic energy without re-emitting them. Scattering changes photon trajectories including sending them back inward to cancel other photons; absorption converts them entirely into kinetic energy. Opacity is defined as the coefficient by which scattering and absorption reduce the photon output.
I think you're assuming that all photons "find their way out" as photons. No, they can turn into heat energy which is then convected outward and dissipated into local space; convection is an alternative mechanism to radiation. They can contribute to an increased internal equilibrial radiation pressure. And so on. The excess energy need not remain in the form of light.
The narrative by which you conclude the cancellations is correct in the broad outlines, but I believe the final cancellation is not "a strong gravitational field" but the massive particle's increased velocity, which increases its "resistance to acceleration" by the same degree as your cancellation.
I think this also answers your concerns about whether past radiation pressure process could be observed as different: they wouldn't be any different. If you think there would be an observable major change in radiation pressure please explain that a little better, thanks.
I didn't mean to say that particles were added. Sorry! It appears that particles which would not now resolve photons at all would somehow be stopping them back then. It is not clear why this happens, since masses have shrunk whereas photon wavelengths have actually increased a bit. Yes, there's an answer in the paper but it's clouded in gobbledygook. Anyway, I'll happily grant it because the whole idea of ... well ... HIDING behind OPACITY is silly.
You have described scattering correctly, but particles also absorb photons into their own kinetic energy without re-emitting them.
I suspect this is rare, but I won't quibble. You raise the temperature of the gas, increasing the frequency and energy of the gas collisions. Photons are emitted. If the photon input is unremitting, the gas either reaches equilibrium with the photon input or is driven right off by its rising temperature and the radiation pressure. If the gas is being held in place by a strong gravity, it glows to an incandescence which soon matches its input. IOW, its buffering capacity has been filled.
Now, the interior of a star is indeed a lot hotter than the outer layers. That is not precluded and there are reasons for it. Mostly it's because the interior is under more pressure. Also, the outer surface is only being bombarded with energy from one direction and can get rid of it in the outward direction. But the star is shedding all of its energy as fast as it makes it.
You can't bottle up a steady stream of energy. If output doesn't equal input, you don't have equilibrium.
To radiate energy away from something like the Sun, you have only radiation, mostly photons. There's a particle stream as well, but the energy content is really all in the light. All the energy you make in there has to get out. It will get out as photons. Hot things radiate photons. Even on Earth, on a cold and very dark night, with infrared goggles you can see things radiating energy they gained during the day.
The Sun is going to radiate all that excess energy you have bought off on it producing. If you really, really block the energy, the Sun is going to really, really swell.
You keep coming back pretending not to understand this. Shuffle, jive! Shuffle, jive!
I see it, OK? You pretending YOU can't see it certainly isn't going to make your case in my eyes, and I doubt if too many other people are having trouble following my point.
You either let the energy out or you don't. It isn't going to just build and build in there with nothing happening.
Out of time for now.
The narrative by which you conclude the cancellations is correct in the broad outlines, but I believe the final cancellation is not "a strong gravitational field" but the massive particle's increased velocity, which increases its "resistance to acceleration" by the same degree as your cancellation.
No sale. If the particle velocity is cancelling photon energy, it is used up in the first collision with the first photon. If it isn't used up, it's free energy from nowhere. Same crap as in the fusion reactions.
I think this also answers your concerns about whether past radiation pressure process could be observed as different: they wouldn't be any different. If you think there would be an observable major change in radiation pressure please explain that a little better, thanks.
How does a gas cloud particle in space such as would be subject to radiation pressure cancel radiation pressure with its velocity at all? For one thing, it's more likely a macroscopic object than a nucleon. After all, we can see such clouds a long way off.
But let's give it that velocity. A cloud of same hanging in space has no net shared velocity. This intrinsic quantum speedup thing has some of the particles jittering madly one way and some of them jittering madly another way.
Any visible features in such a cloud would rapidly disappear if the average velocity of a gas particle were higher. Never mind radiation pressure. The cloud would appear to be ripping itself apart for no reason, dispersing very rapidly, and we haven't even applied the radiation pressure yet.
If the frame rate thing cancels anything, you just used it up canceling THAT.
Now a supernova pops off nearby. There's a storm of energetic photons from one consistent direction.
The photons have almost the energy of now. There are also more of them, although for some reason that doesn't really show. Anyway, the particles in the gas cloud have no mass to resist acceleration. You already used up the frame rate explaining why the cloud doesn't seem to dissipate rapidly all by itself.
Why doesn't the cloud fly off faster than now?