TIME CONSTANCY = PROOF of GOD

1st, the Cesium clocks. What I proved there was that during GENERAL passage of time (as in not under special circumstances either), even without traveling close to the speed of light, it is feasible that time does in fact fluctuate by tiny increments, as of yet undetectable. As you were quick to point out, we should not regard them as extant simply because they are possible. However, here I was just pointing out that there is no definitive way to prove that Time (not the intervals between our measurements of time) is constant either if we cannot measure it to precision. (By the way, I am of the impression a straw man logical fallacy means that a debator has taken the opposition's argument and made it inferior for more ease in debating. However, this does not mean every time I paraphrase your arguments is a straw man logical fallacy.-- You said: "We cannot possibly "know" that time "is not" constant -- because time IS constant, just as we cannot "know" that Texas "is not" a state -- because Texas IS a state." And I responded: "Your counterargument consisted of telling me that time cannot be inconstant because it is constant," that is a fairly reasonable summarization of your argument-- not a straw man logical fallacy) Next. To say LIGO's results are lies would be saying that those who produced those results are lying. As it turns out, LIGO is operated by MIT and Caltech, and $260 million dollars have been poured into the project. To me it seems pretentious to say that the operator from prestigious schools to whom the government has entrusted that large of a sum of money are in fact lying, and instead posit that time has continued constantly because there have always been 60 seconds in a minute. You are ignorant of the fact that more or less time than average can and does elapse during the intervals between the seconds. Our measurements of time are regular, but the time actually elapsing can go faster or slower. You pretty obviously didn't like the word "experience" that I used earlier. I apologize if you interpreted this to mean your personal subjective opinion. Instead I was alluding to the fact that only from your perspective would time be slowing down. "I would like to know on exactly what date in history you supposedly made such a measurement, as well as what method you used to make that measurement " Turns out, every day for Muons (small particles created by cosmic rays...) Also here i should add that the time differences that these muons experience due to time dilation is more than any imprecise clock can measure-- a matter of seconds as opposed to nanoseconds. http://ph.qmul.ac.uk... This research has been completed by the Queen Mary University of London, so I would not argue with that if I were you. Your argument that time doesn't slow down by the Lorentz factor ( is simply false. This has been the bedrock behind science that has enabled us to make geostationary satellites more precise in their measurements of time due to their high speeds. I have already cited that as well. I don't think Georgia State University would deliberately put wrong information online. Next. If your only qualification for time being constant is 60 seconds being in a minute, I guess we agree. However, each second and minute being exactly the same as another one is ludicrous in the face of the scholarly evidence above (seriously click on the links be they in this round or the prior one, and read them) Regardless, let us not continue to belabor this issue anymore, and let the voters decide which side really is correct. We can compromise by saying that time moves forward relatively uniformly As for your real argument, there is little to say here other than that you never actually addressed my point concerning the maximum entropy principle. I guess I should also rephrase my entity argument as well: there is nothing that would suffice to make me believe there is any sort of omnipotent being that can make time move forward at a relatively constant rate. In fact it seems to me like an instance of what you pointed out earlier as an argument from ignorance. I would be unlikely to believe that "God" whoever you may be referring to is able to do this unless I can understand the mechanism by which he/she does it. If you are going to give a faith based argument, ("We don't need proof, but faith") that does not contribute to the objective decision that will come about at the end of this debate, and hence is irrelevant. For the present, please explain why the principle of maximum entropy doesn't work, given that the universe is 4 dimensional...