It's not a constant. It's convention, the proton breaks down in high energy fields into its base constituents. The convention being under certain ambient conditions we treat this entity to be fixed within those ambient conditions and study the effects it has on other 'things' within those same ambient conditions. Bohr's model was abandoned over 80 years ago. You're still arguing from what you learned in those really basic physics classes. They only teach the basic physics models in those early classes in order to build towards the more advanced models because you need a certain level of mathematical and physics maturity before you can tackle the advanced models.
It's nice to use your own definitions and philosophies to try to dictate physics, but that's not scientific and is not an argument. That's just you dictating your personal philosophy/religion/world beliefs, whatever you want to call it. Lemme know when you have an argument from the basis of modern science, logic, and maths instead of your personal biases/beliefs/personal experiences/basically anything that's irrelevant to your argument.
Just LOL. Modern physics cannot explain the interactions of matter and energy in the real universe any more than a high school physics enthusiast. But they can use more words and write out equations. But in the REAL UNIVERSE they do not apply as advertised. It cannot even accurately predict a billiard ball shot. To me, that puts it in the same "science" category as phrenology, alchemy and the Flat Earth world. Therefore, I have no interest in studying the same old thing.
Funny to read the "scientific" basis for the Copernical solar system. So official sounding, so many equations, and totally wrong. I grant you your knowledge of "modern physics". Good for you. But to claim it has much relevance to the REAL universe and REAL matter and energy is misleading. At best, it provides approximations.