http://www.bartol.udel.edu/~owocki/xfr/mlum-edd.pdf

http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~george/ay20/eaa-stellarmasses.pdf

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~gmuench/thesis/muencha_thesis.pdf

Thank You. I will try to summarise:

1. You POSTULATE, that astrophysics can be explained knowing stellar mass and chemical composition only. I see however that Wiki is not enthuasistic to this:

"The Vogt–Russell theorem states that the structure of a star, in hydrostatic and thermal equilibrium with all energy derived from nuclear reactions, is uniquely determined by its mass and the distribution of chemical elements throughout its interior.[1] Although referred to as a theorem, the Vogt–Russell theorem has never been formally proved".

2. You consider universe strictly under such postulate however way you obtain stellar masses is speculative..

3. It turned out, that you are a)not able to model a single star, b)temperature for thermonuclear fusion cannot be reached in stellar cores, c)observations suggest liquid Sun instead of mainstream gaseous one, d)helioseismology tells us about largely homogenous Sun etc.- you do not take this all in account.

4. You made far reaching suggestions about stellar evolution from mass-luminosity relation and place several stellar classes out of "main sequence" for purely geometric reasons.

5. It turned out, that stellar mass-radius-luminosity-rotation relation do not lead to exclude any objects of more than 96% of stellar population from "main sequence" whatever it means.

So

1)how do You feel- is stellar mass-luminosity relation a big achievment of astrophysics or simply, after Jeans, a mathematical trickery?

2)future of civilisation now depends from right understanding of our star. How do You feel within this mountain of pseudoscientific garbadge, which is now the astrophysics?