Could you be more specific with your criticism of my ideas, and please refrain from criticizing me as a person.
I welcome your criticism of my ideas. Criticizing me as a person has no benefit to you or me or anyone else anywhere. After all you do not know what I have accomplished, learned, absorbed, understood, or what I know and can do.

I enjoy debating the various viewpoints that are in the gray area of science.

Judging from your reply I can only conclude that you either did not read my explanation or did not understand it.

So, I will try to be more specific in my explanation of the relationship of the "constant" in the universal scheme of things.

First point: "The derivative of a constant is zero."

If you are familiar with derivatives in mathematical calculations then you know that the derivative of any constant is zero.
The speed of light is considered as a constant therefore its derivative is zero.

Can you dispute these facts?

The zero is used in many situations as a point of reference, such as, the zero point in the temperature scale either in Fahrenheit or Celsius indicates a condition of the heat content. The actual temperature can go above or below this reference point.
We can also consider the water level of the worlds oceans as a reference point and call that zero height, but we can go above or below that zero reference height.
We could also calculate the mean distance from the center of the Earth to the water surface of the oceans and then we could call that distance a constant because the distance does not vary very much from year to year.
If we did that calculation, then that figure would represent not only the constant distance of the water level from the center of the planet but it would also indicate the zero height that we have said that level represents. Therefore the constant distance is the same as the reference or zero height, measured from the center of the planet.
In somewhat similar manner the speed of light is considered as a constant and a reference point for various calculations about mass and energy. It also represents the reference zero where the photons propagate at the measured speed.

Since you say that it is wrong, could you specify the exact point where I go wrong with this assumption?

Johannes