In most cases your assessment of my sarcasm would probably be correct, but in this case I was more interested to see your response; to seee you argue against what I've said, agree with me or even come up with some other option(s).
I think you may have missed the point of my posts. My assumptions of the past in the case of a change in light speed can be deduced by taking current conditions, the proposed conditions of the past, and some basic calculus. There may be no way of proving that the proposed conditions are 100% correct, but it is possible to show that they are 0% correct by showing the consequences those conditions would have on the present.
"What's so wrong about not knowing. What's so wrong with admitting you don't know. Investigating the past isn't a crime. Nor is it necessarily foolish.
There is nothing wrong with not knowing, nor in admitting such. Science, including biology, admits that it doesn't know everything. If it did know everything it would have no reason to pursue any investigation. I don't think I ever suggested that investigation of the past is a waste, or foolish. I feel it to be necessary. Knowing the past and the mechanisms that underly events, gives us a better chance of predicting and mitigating similar events.
"But when you don't know or can't know something is so, it is better to say so than to make stuff up. Truth is always preferred over the lie in my book. In the book of others, that is not the case - agendas seem to get in the way sometimes..
Agendas do get in the way, from all sides, in any debate. However some agendas produce ideas, and their verbalizations, that can be investigated, analyzed, tested and either rejected or adopted. This is why science as it is works. If an agenda causes a scientist to fudge his data and findings, someone, somewhere, with a different agenda will tear into those findings and data and find the errors. Eventually, sometimes very quickly, errors will be eliminated and conclusions drawn that are as humanly accurate as possible. Science by its very nature is adversarial.
That, again, is assumption - that current conditions existed in the beginning or in the distant past. I have made it very clear that is an assumption you cannot sustain. You may think it "reasonable". It is not reasonable because nobody has seen the beginnings of a world before, much less one like ours. So there is no data from which to presume that such an assumption fits a norm such that it would fit the category of "reasonable" postulations.
If I see an accident with no skidmarks at the scene and the ground is dry, it is reasonable to assume the brakes were not applied on either vehicle in the accident. It is reasonable to presume this because based on observation, we know what happens when the brakes are applied.
You would like to argue a set of concepts and just have all your assumptions accepted as though they were "reasonable". And in some cases, your assumptions are implied, as with the arguments presented - heat levels would be higher if your assumptions hold true. Problem is, there is nothing to base reasonability of the assumption on, so, you're postulating an irrelevancy as though it were something relevant. Until you can establish conditions, You have no argument to contest with anymore than you have a worthwhile theory to begin with. That is my entire point. Until you start assuming things, you have no theory. And most of the things you assume have no relevant observable data that can be reviewed to determine the "reasonableness" of the assumptions. But, how about if we assume you wrote a will and assume you left everything to me and assume that everything amounted to 10 million. Now let's assume you just died yesterday and someone else is actually manning your internet presence. Based on all my assumptions, I'm now a multimillionaire. Are my assumptions unreasonable. Yes. But by your standard they'd be totally reasonable and even worth pontificating on.