Joined: Jan. 2006
In answer to your question #5: No. I personally can't prove that the speed of light has been constant since the "beginning of time". I don't have an opinion one way or the other, but I strongly doubt that it has varied by more than about 1% in cosmologically recent times (i.e. during the Earth's history). I'm not a cosmologist myself, but I think actual cosmologists would agree with this. (Anyone who knows about this topic, please correct me, if I'm wrong).
Now I'd like to discuss some of the misconceptions in your question.
|A theory long held as fact since the early 20th Century is that the speed of light is a constant as summed up in E=Mc2 (Otherwise known as Einsteinís theory of general relativity).|
The Special Theory of Relativity (of which E=mc^2 is one result) neither requires nor predicts that c is a constant. If c was bigger, E would be bigger. And both Special and General theories of Relativity have had very solid experiment confirmation.
|If the speed of light was faster in antiquity than it is now, than the universe is MUCH younger than currently postulated|
This doesn't follow at all. Here's a revised statement that I could agree with: "If the speed of light was hundreds of millions of times faster 6000 years ago than it is now, measurements of astronomical distance could be reconciled with a 6000 year old universe". Do you think that "c has always had the exact same value as today" and "c was hundreds of millions times larger 6000 years ago" are the only two possibilities?
|since the age of the Universe is currently theorized based on the assumption that the speed of light was, is and always will be a constant. |
Cosmological red shift is (I think, I could be wrong) the basis of estimates of the age of the universe, but it is not the only factor by far.
In summary, there is a huge logical gap between a non-constant speed of light and the assertion that the universe is very young. Would you care to fill it?