Joined: Oct. 2005
Swoosh- To me it seems that your philosophy is that something doesn't exist until you observe it. So, if you want to see the evidence for an astronomers explanation of how a star is born, go to your local observatory and analyze the spetrographs of a few different heavenly bodies. Then you will have some idea of the gases and hence reactions within those heavenly bodies. You would also be able to deduce the temperature of these heavenly bodies. With the help of persons more qualified than my self you should be able to see that the heavenly bodies you have observed could be interpreted as a star at various stages in it's evolution. After observing a few thousand different identical examples of this evolution occuring in the universe, you should be bored enough to assume that this is the way it happens for all stars. Incidentally, this is part of how science works.
If theres no evidence of the speed of light being constant, there's no evidence of the permititivity of free space being constant, there's no evidence of the permeability of free space being constant and there is therefore no evidence of any electromagnetic interaction being constant. If in the entire history of the universe the magnitude of the force between charged particles has been changing, I think that astronomers explanations of the birth of stars can't be correct because the rely upon the constancy of electromagnetic reactions over very long periods of times, unless of course this inconstancy of the speed of light is negligible in which case it doesn't matter. So I leave it to you to go out and look at the evidence and see that there is in fact evidence for the speed of light to be constant by looking at the way many long term the explanations of many long term phenomena require it to be constant.