If you say so - I'd argue that the scientific community has a clear and long track record of stamping out any dissent or questioning of established scientific dogma.

Please regale me tales about Galileo and Copernicus and try to equate them to the highly evolving, substantially better peer-reviewed, global scientific community because they're so obviously similar.

picks Bose-Einstein Condensate experiments into the behavior of electromagnetic fields to nitpick at

Yes, I get it now. Clearly, I'm wasting my time. Having studied laser design and having my fair share of E&M, I do not have to go further into why the reasoning for variable light in hollow earth theory is factually incorrect as it supposes that c is variable, not the speed at which light travels and instead the upper limit of the speed of light.

Anyone with basic experience in optics will tell you that light travels slower in any medium that isn't a pure vacuum, but you didn't say that because you are a hollow earth shill that hastily googled "slowing down speed of light" rather than having a fundamental understanding of it.

You see, there is a difference between designing experiments to get unique results and then there is how things occur in nature. Are you aware that two-photon and multi-photon phenomenon have kinetics on the orders of millions and billions of years? Yet it's a pretty routine confocal technique used in biology and because of our in depth understanding of the nuances of it, we can create virtual effects that are classically forbidden. What I'm getting at is showing a specific technology or experiment about something that happens when we set up quantum effects in special ways in no way suggest that all of science is wrong but instead reinforces our understanding of it.

I'd also prefer you to link to actual papers and not to "physics world" or the like.

Again, it's intellectually dishonest to give hollow earth theory any credence beyond a shallow read because it violates what we know about the world and what is known. I do not have a degree in astrophysics, but I have a friend that does and I linked him this post. He couldn't finish it because of how it violates every single cosmological law. As a start, how do you explain cosmic background radiation? How do you explain gravitational lensing? G, the constant for gravity (which isn't variable) would have to become variable for this theory to hold any ground. How is the observation that the universe is expanding explained?

Well, that would be pretty easy to test, wouldn't it? Copper and nickel have fairly consistent and measurable qualities, so if your penny theory were true it would be fairly straightforward to prove or refute.

EXACTLY. But then I could just make up a statement like well you know the mass of copper or nickel is variable and depends (which it can but not at physiological energies or speeds) on how long you've been in the sunlight? How do you really know that some portion of water atoms don't spontaneously transform to copper and then back? It's absurd confirmation biases that have no standing and it is frankly unnerving that the education system churns out individuals who consider this theory to be on par with the current theory. It's not having insight or being critical in your thought processes, but standing on a chair and "just asking questions."