PUH Theorem 330 (The Floor Is Rigid, and It Is Not an Engine) — T197's Measured Flux Gives a Solar-Mass Core 3.5×10⁵ W Against the Sun's 3.8×10²⁶, So T210's Accumulation Condition Is Satisfied by Twenty-One Orders and the Core Contributes Mass Withou

Photonic Universe Hypothesis (PUH) — Quantification and Limit. THREE FILED RESULTS THAT COMBINE WITHOUT A NEW ASSUMPTION. T210 (April) establishes that mass accumulates at gravitational focus points BECAUSE the infall rate, set by external gravity, exceeds the local folding rate, set by substrate dynamics: when R_infall > R_fold, arriving mass-energy sits in a configuration that cannot immediately be folded. That paper states plainly that without the substrate rate limit there would be NO ACCUMULATION, NO CORE FORMATION AND NO RESIDUAL HEAT, and that the asymmetry of reversibility is why accumulation is progressive rather than equilibrating. T213 (May) establishes that folding and unfolding proceed at the same rate PER UNIT SURFACE AREA. T197 (April) supplies what the others do not — A MEASURED VALUE: Pluto's steady 3.2 mW/m² thermal flux attributed to the Planck Shell, with that body's radioactive inventory unable to sustain it, only 12.5 percent of the original potassium-40 remaining after 4.5 Gyr. THEOREM 330.1. Capacity is the surface rate times the Shell area, and because a core is horizon-scale, P(M) = q·4πr_s² = q·16πG²M²/c⁴ with q = 3.2×10⁻³ W m⁻². Computed: an Earth-seed core (5×10²¹ kg) gives 2.22×10⁻¹² W; a Pluto-seed core, 1.50×10⁻¹¹ W; a Jupiter-seed core (2×10²⁷ kg), 3.55×10⁻¹ W; a solar-mass core, 3.51×10⁵ W; a 30 M☉ core, 3.16×10⁸ W. AGAINST THE SUN'S LUMINOSITY OF 3.828×10²⁶ W, THE SOLAR-MASS CAPACITY FALLS SHORT BY TWENTY-ONE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE. RESULT 330.2 (the favourable half). T210's accumulation condition is satisfied at stellar scales not marginally but by twenty-one orders. MATERIAL ALWAYS PILES UP AND NEVER CLEARS — THE FLOOR IS EFFECTIVELY RIGID. What T210 established as a mechanism is shown to be not a delicate balance but a foregone conclusion, and its claim that accumulation is progressive rather than equilibrating is confirmed with a number rather than an argument. The envelope exists precisely BECAUSE the floor is slow: a core processing arriving material at the rate gravity delivers it would consume its own envelope, and there would be no star to observe. The rate limit is not an inconvenience in the framework; it is what makes the framework's objects have anything around them. RESULT 330.3 (a scaling that twice caused trouble does none here). T318 showed the planetary convergence window required lighter cores to be affected more, and horizon-scale growth gives the reverse. T328 showed the absorption-dominated implosion required larger cores to be less able to process, and A ∝ M² gives the reverse there too. HERE THE SAME SCALING DOES NO HARM, because capacity begins so far below demand that no amount of growth closes the gap — a core would need to reach 10¹⁰ M☉ before its processing rate matched solar luminosity. The asymmetry is itself informative: MECHANISMS DEPENDING ON THE ORDERING OF A SCALING ARE FRAGILE, WHILE THOSE DEPENDING ON AN INEQUALITY HOLDING BY MANY ORDERS ARE ROBUST. RESULT 330.4 (the limit, stated as firmly as the favourable result). A solar-mass core delivering 3.5×10⁵ W CANNOT POWER A STAR, cannot set stellar structure, and cannot determine which kind of star forms. Hydrogen fusion does that, at a rate twenty-one orders larger. Any proposal that different stellar types correspond to different quantities of material resting on a core must therefore work through something other than the core's energy output: the core does not heat the envelope appreciably, does not regulate it, and does not select among main-sequence, giant, dwarf or compact configurations — those are set by fusion, degeneracy pressure and evolutionary history, exactly as in ordinary stellar astrophysics. THIS IS A GENUINE CONSTRAINT AND IS NOT SOFTENED: T197's claim concerns SMALL BODIES, where 3.2 mW/m² is a substantial fraction of the thermal budget and sustains Pluto's ocean. Scaling that claim to stars does not work, and the failure is not marginal. WHAT REMAINS. If the core contributes negligible energy, what does it contribute? MASS WITHOUT RADIUS — a solar-mass core has a Shell radius of three kilometres inside a star of seven hundred thousand. Its signature is therefore not luminosity, composition or spectral type, but THE SHAPE OF THE MASS-RADIUS RELATION, which flattens when mass is added without size. That is precisely where T328 landed from an entirely different direction — the failure of a thin-film reading against measured neutron-star radii. TWO ROUTES, ONE CONCLUSION: the framework's remaining purchase on stellar structure is the mass-radius curve. KILL-CONDITIONS: (i) if q is not universal — if it rises steeply with core mass, density or temperature — the capacity is underestimated and both results move; THE ARCHIVE DOES NOT DERIVE q FROM FIRST PRINCIPLES ANYWHERE, and T197's value is measured at one body under one set of conditions; (ii) if the relevant area is not the horizon-scale Shell, the M² scaling fails; (iii) if Pluto's heat flux has an ordinary explanation after all — tidal heating, or a larger radioactive inventory — the anchor value is not a Planck Shell measurement and this note has no number; (iv) if cores are not horizon-scale, this and both prior scaling results fail together. NOT CLAIMED: that q has been derived; that the accumulation mechanism is proved, since T210 established it and this note only quantifies how strongly it holds; that stellar types have been explained, since Result 330.4 argues the core cannot explain them; that the mass-radius signature has been computed, which requires the core's mass fraction and an equation of state; or that Pluto's flux is confirmed as Planck-Shell in origin, which is T197's claim and is relied upon rather than re-established.