This is a pretty old argument but....

Variable physical constants invoked to effectively refute empirical data, thus allowing an a priori assumed worldview to remain possible? If you smell smoke, see smoke, and feel a bit hot, there's probably a fire.

And that is important how?

How's this for a Theory?

What if our entire Universe is composed of our Solar System contained within nothing more then a SnowGlobe!

All the Stars and Planets and Rocks we see out there are nothing more then a Fancy Light show displayed on the inside surface of the Globe like a Cosmalogical Planetarium!

What kind of Evidence do we have to show us that this is not true?

Not quite.
m is the rest mass of a particle, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum.

The full formula is: E ^2= (p*c)^2 + (m*c^2)^2
Where p is the particle's momentum.

Mostly because a moving particle has more energy than a stationary one.



No. If the speed of light was much higher, then the mass of a proton would be much less. They balance out.

Oh, I see.

Well, none, really. But what if the entire universe was [insert any object that could superficially be compared to the universe]?

you've never heard this argument?

alright, let me explain

E=MC^2. This is an equation which describes the amount of energy contained in a defined amount of mass. In other words, how much mass will you get if you convert a specific amount of mass into pure energy. Energy in joules=Mass in kilograms times C which is the speed of light in meters per second, squared.

The Sun generates heat and light through a process called thermonuclear fusion (you should have known this already), where 2 hydrogen and or helium nuclei are fused together under high pressure and heat.

During this reaction, a small amount of mass (5% of the mass, which is about 5 million tons of hydrogen converted into hydrogen) is converted into pure energy. If the speed of light was once much faster in the supposed 6000 years of the universe's history, then the amount of energy generated from the sun would have been enough scorch the earth and probably melt it. lets do a quick calculation. 13.7 billion divided by 6000. In order for us to see galaxies 13.7 billion light years from earth, then the speed of light would have to be 2.3 million times as much as it is. That means the sun's energy output would be 2.3 million times as much as is, therefore melting the earth

If the universe is only 6000 years old, then how is it that it is possible for us to see these bodies if it has to take a minimum of 13.7 Billion years for the light to reach us?