In other words, you're speculating. You haven't shown me how such tiny variations (and for your theory to work, they would only be allowed to vary to one side of the equation, and that hasn't been observed) justify the orders of magnitude that would be require to recalibrate the age of the universe from the observable billions, to a few thousand.
You have to ignore the fossil evidence, radioactive decay, the speed of light, gravitation, erosion, sedimentary layering - such a preponderance of things you can count and measure, in order to buy into YEC that it completely fails the Occam's razor test. The book it junk science BTW. According to his theory of a 6,000 year old universe due to there only being a few observable supernova, we should still be able to see the Hiroshima explosion. The idea that once a star explodes it dissipates and cools must have never occurred to him. I'm embarrassed for him.
“According to his theory of a 6,000 year old universe due to there only being a few observable supernova, we should still be able to see the Hiroshima explosion.”
Simply put, no.
You’re confusing the local time versus the time acceleration at a different locality.
“Star5light and Time” explains all of that.
By the way, I am curious about your technical background. Do you have any formal training or experience in science or engineering?