Why Scale?

Why are atoms any particular size?  As small as we think atoms are, they could still be infinitely smaller, or infinitely larger.  There are no rules in physics that says matter is x size because of y, or the speed of light is c because of b.  The laws of physics just define their mechanical nature or characteristic based on themselves. Actual size is virtually meaningless from a physics standpoint.  

When I talk size, I'm talking scale, not dimensions from our perspective of scale. If everything was scaled down precisely 50% for example, our rules of physics would not change, nor would our perspective.  Nothing would change from our point of view.  Our static view would remain static regardless of any discreet or undetected change in the underlying reality even though the entire universe was 50% less.  

I think we have a preconceived bias towards a static perspective because of our earthly existence, but the real truth is, a static reality has never been proven to exist.  Yes, we keep looking for that answer, but there is no mathematical evidence to prove or even suggest any constant is purely static.  The speed of light is the speed of light because that's what it is, and that's all we know.  That goes for all constants, but that's not proof from a scientific standpoint.  That's just a declaration of an observation we don't fully comprehend, much less understand.  From a scientific standpoint, it's like believing in Santa Claus because your parents told you, and that's not very scientific..  We don't know why or if constants are actually constant.  That's the facts.

Once we disregard any bias towards a static existence, and look again at our perspective of expansion, we have to question it as a scientific probability.  A scaling process would look exactly like an expanding process if our perspective was merely relative to the process.  All of physics hinges on the constants we observe.  

Seeing might be believing in everyday life, but beliefs have no place in science.  We either know something or we don't in science.  Beyond verifiable mathematical proof, all else is conjecture or speculation.  If we can see two answers to the same problem logically, and mathematically we can't determine which answer is true and which one is false, then we're simply left with two equal possibilities from a mathematical standpoint.

We've assumed elements within the universe are static in nature, without mathematical proof.  The observations aren't proof, they are evidence.  As we've unequivocally proven in quantum mechanics, nature isn't always what is appears to be, so the evidence is circumstantial which is leading us to conjectural definition at best.  Observations are a matter of perspective.  It might be right, but we don't know that, and I most certainly don't believe it no matter who is telling me they know the answer.  They don't, and neither do I.