Those constants do not exist in a vacuum, they are a necessary consequence of the properties of the matter and forces they study and if they changed then everything they affected or interacted with had to change too.
I will give you a practical example. If they cannot assume that the decay rate of uranium is constant, then they cannot reasonable estimate the safety of a nuclear reactor containment vessel, or say with any certainty that any of our nuclear warheads would be any more effective than dropping a comparable load of bricks from high altitude.
You submit that your questions have a broader context than I address. I will try to do better if you will try to understand that for them to make the assumptions you want them to make, or disallow the ones you don't want them making has cosequences beyond your immediate objections to those assumptions.
“I will try to do better if you will try to understand that for them to make the assumptions you want them to make”
Pointing out an elitist-like statement. Not for the point of slamming you but because you don’t seem to know when you do it.
Your answers are, again well thought out and I appreciate that, but just as you are convinced of your logic in these matters I see the point I’m trying to make just as vividly. We only know so much past 100 years or so but assume we have become so intelligent in that time we can answer the mysteries of the universe. It’s no different than the global warming argument... to think the earth is, as the evolutionists claim billions of years old and we could destroy it with an SUV in 40 is ludicrous, yet you ask me to trust those same scientists when it comes to millions of years? Better yet, You believe them? You seem smarter than that to me.