I did not present proof. They asked what it would mean and a consequence of physical laws not being time invariant would be that energy does not need to be cons

I did not present proof. They asked what it would mean and a consequence of physical laws not being time invariant would be that energy does not need to be conserved. To the extent that relates to epistemology that would be more like anti-proof I guess? It does not prove that the laws are time invariant, rather it raises the bar to demonstrate that the laws are not time invariant because that means energy need not be conserved. You can not get one without the other without attacking even deeper fundamentals of modern scientific models. So you must either demonstrate the linked claims, which are pretty foundational themselves, or you must overturn basically everything; both of which demand very robust evidence.