why are we not all dying of skin cancer and why are the oceans not boiling?
You're assuming that the sun needs to output as much energy as it does in RET to heat the earth. Since it's much closer, it can output much less.
My point/claim is that, if (according to FET) the Sun is 32 miles in diameter and only 3000 miles away, and if it consists of reactive hydrogen, the energy output would still be much higher than what we observe/feel. Remember that since the energy would expand/dissipate in three dimensions, it would be inversely proportional to the square of the distance (like "gravity"), so 9.3x10^7 miles vs 3x10^3 miles, distance is 3.1x10^4 farther in RET, heat would be more than 9x10^8 more direct (I admit I might be doing some "creative" math here, but as far as dimensionless ratios go, it's a fair assessment). Now for the size itself, diameter ratio would be 8.6x10^5 miles (RET) to 3.2x10^1 miles (FET), so let's approximate it to be roughly 2.5x10^4, volume of a sphere is cubic, so that makes the RET sun 1.6x10^13 more voluminous. Although, I suppose what is really important is the mass of hydrogen, which AFAIK needs to be above a critical density in order for it to ignite and sustain the fusion reaction (shit I remember from an astronomy elective years ago). So perhaps we can't say for sure how the energy of a much smaller (in volume, at least) but much closer sun would compare, but it seems to be another point that needs to be thought through. At least so you can come up with some pseudoscience to address the differences.
Show Posts