Yes depending on what is nothing.Ã‚Â Particles and anti-particles pop into existence all of the time.Ã‚Â If they do so in external fields they separate and do not annihilate.Ã‚Â So we had nothing and now we have two renegad particles.
What is nothing? I hate to laugh but that is a oxymoron statement if you think about it. You are basically trying to invoke a god like situation to make what you want to happen, happen. That's not science. Twisting the definition of nothing does not make a new reality.
However, the claim that Scott is making is that c could have changed.Ã‚Â So lets not move the goal posts.
I believe this also. But not in a sense that most would ponder this and here's why:
I believe the first 6 days of creation were in eternity. This is because sin did not happen until towards the end of the 6th day.
Now for eternity to be eternity, would the laws of that time-line be the same as we now understand our own time-line? Of course not. Different laws allow for things to work differently.
Eternity basically deals with time and age. It separates the two processes where one does not control the other. So time passes, but age is not a part of the passage of time. That is how eternity would work being that time was a part of it.
Which raises the questions:
1) How do you measure the speed something travels, if time is separated from age so that it can be eternal?
2) How does something age in an age-less time line unless age is added upon it's creation?
So it's not that speed of light not being a constant, it's that the timeline was different. And therefore the laws were different as well. Light from stars billions of light years away reached the earth because eternal time laws allowed them to until man sinned and changed them. So the reason it seem impossible in our time-line is because it would be. But not in a sin-less time-line where the laws are not the same.