What is this model? I do not understand it. Can you give a very brief synopsis and maybe an example?
I visited the Cosmometry website and am more confused.
Do you mean not understanding Websters Atmospheric Light Transformer model or Kevin and I's little sidebar thing?
If with the ALT model than it boils down to replacing the model of light, or heat, as heat is just another wavelength of light, coming directly from the Sun, but being created in the atmospheres of planets or moons by a higher level of solar radiation interacting with the matter in such atmosphere. This also renders the solar constant model invalid.
As an example, and possibly a chink in the armour of present astronomical models, is this article:
Surprise! When a brown dwarf is actually a planetary mass object
Sometimes a brown dwarf is actually a planet—or planet-like anyway. A team led by Carnegie's Jonathan Gagné, and including researchers from the Institute for Research on Exoplanets (iREx) at Université de Montréal, the American Museum of Natural History, and University of California San Diego, discovered that what astronomers had previously thought was one of the closest brown dwarfs to our own Sun is in fact a planetary mass object.
https://phys.org/news/2017-05-brown-dwa ... -mass.html
With the ALT model, I would have these type of objects as planets with sufficient atmosphere to glow in a way detectable by the present instruments in use. Similarly with Venus and Saturn, our Suns radiation heats the atmosphere by the transformer mechanism. Saturn puts out more energy than it receives from the Sunlight incident on it, according to the old model, but in reality it is producing more energy because there is more atmosphere for the solar radiation to transform.
This would also explain perhaps the heating observed in Earths mid-atmospheric region, which has been a bit of a puzzle to the standard model proponents. It is a region where the nature of the solar radiation interacts with a particular type and/or density of matter and is giving off a wavelength of light that heats surrounding material. Electron transition heating? Most likely.
Without the solar constant model, then the nature of the solar radiation by my reckoning, means that the radiation must go great distances and not loose its energy, so even planets or moons way out there, having sufficient atmosphere, will be warmer and brighter that the standard model allows. This has already been noted at Pluto, but has not even been pondered I don't think. They just assume instrument calibration errors perhaps, can't argue with the Solar constant, can we?
It is already accepted, I think, that certain, perhaps quantised levels of E/M radiation, and beginning in the Vacuum UV region, will become self focusing, and thus can travel almost infinitely without loosing energy. If so, then it is possible that ALL the objects we are told are stars MIGHT be just be planetary bodies within the solar system, and my guess is that they are located in the proposed Oort cloud. True stars are pinches in a cosmic flux tube, and if no evidence of a flux tube is found, IMO, it is not a star.
And even further outside the box:
This self perpetuating radiation might be then considered a soliton perhaps, but if we go that route, then we should also consider something like Kevins view, that is that
nothing moves, including light. As Einstein stated: "The Universe is an aggregate of non-simultaneous and only partially overlapping energy events." With vacuum solitons, it can be so.
ARE WE VACUUM WAVES?
https://msu.edu/~hitchco4/vacwaves.pdf
The vacuum would be an infinitely dense, infinitely energetic, closest packed arrangement of the aether, or Akasha.
I hope that cleared things up for you hyrumpoint0, confused the heck out of me!
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller