TIME CONSTANCY = PROOF of GOD

Summing up this debate, my objections were to your declarations that time is in fact constant, and that there would be no concrete basis for time constancy other than God. 1. Time is not constant: a. What I said (pockmarked by a few amateur errors in delivery: Time is not constant because in general our precise timing capacities are limited, so we are in fact unable to detect possible fluctuations. My point here was for time in general-- but no that alone does not prove time is inconstant. Had I left it there, Pro's argument that I could not be sure that time was inconstant would hold and I would in fact lose. b. Time in certain scenarios does in fact move more quickly or slowly than usual: time dilation, muons not decaying before earth contact, gravitational waves (and objects with large amounts of gravity in general, but I never mentioned that). Purushadasa seems to think that I am incapable of proving this because I argued earlier that we are not precise enough to measure general time inconstancies. Where he went wrong is that I never specified that this was true for ALL time inconstancies. That seems like a straw man right there. Pro then decides to lambast me for not providing a day in history where this applies. What he does not consider is that concerning my evidence, these are daily phenomena-- the methods are found in the evidence. Hence there is a day in history: today for instance that time did run a little bit slowly for some muons. Detected by methods in the last link below. What evidence?? oh maybe this evidence: http://tycho.usno.navy.mil... https://www.ligo.caltech.edu... http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... http://www.gsjournal.net... http://ph.qmul.ac.uk... Other than rebuttals, Pro's counterargument consisted of saying that 60 seconds were always in a minute My rebuttal to that statement said that 60 seconds were human methods to measure time, by definition constant due to their relationship to each other being part of their definition (Pro did object, but provided no evidence) and did a fairly good job at showing a constant passage of time, however are by no means reflective of relativistic phenomena going on during them, so they will stretch and shrink in real length (by minuscule BUT MEASURABLE amounts--- given the right circumstances) Pro's rebuttal to my rebuttal consisted of very little other than outright denial based on very imprecise measurements. 2. There could be a concrete basis for time constancy other than God. I made this claim because I saw no evidence in the first place other than that questionable at best youtube video that a god might possibly provide a basis for time constancy. Just Why? Pro ignored this and chose to attack my bad wording.... In addition he did not supply any description of "God" so I was really at a loss here. A more productive choice would be to recognize there is no possible way I would be familiar with what religion you attach to, and what "God" is to you, and not inconvenience us both debating trivialities such as "a god" vs "God" However, I went along with it and provided some other source of "time constancy" (I'm sorry "provider of a concrete basis for "time constancy") being the maximum entropy principle. Pro, although considering this the "actual argument" ignored that as well, in the midst of attacking various instances of my summarizations of his logic as straw men. So that really didn't work at all, and no conclusion was reached. However, before we finish I will demonstrate how the maximum entropy principle (a law present in almost all areas of physics) http://www-mtl.mit.edu... thats a brief intro to it in math. Regardless, it says that statistically, things organize into positions where they take up the least energy to retain equilibrium. (It makes sense when you look at it mathematically) The universe is just another one of those things. Ever since the beginning of the universe, it has been expanding in all spatial dimensions, so as to decrease energy density, directly complying with the principle of maximum entropy. Now, it sounds strange, but moving forward (not constantly at times) in time is the only logical way to make the universe continue expanding, and obeying that principle. In addition, with time running relatively uniformly forward, from the perspectives of our own galaxy, other galaxies are so distant that we only see them as they were millions or billions of years ago (hence, they occupy different spots in time from our perspective) that means that these galaxies are actually spanned out along the time dimension in order of how far away from us they are. Hence, in the universe, we in this galaxy all have unique coordinates in the universe- both spacial and temporal(from other galaxies of course). This complies with the prior stated principle: it would not be a state of equilibrium in the universe if we were all stacked together on the time dimension, but it is equilibrium because we are spread out. -- this is a matter of pure theory, however It does work equally as well as having "God" manipulating the universe, if not better, because it has grounding in reality, whereas God has no such grounding. If you are a voter and have made it this far I applaud you. Finally consider how my arguments, evidence and rebuttals stack up to those of my opponent fairly. That is all. I am done here. Thank you Purushadasa for debating, I hope this round doesn't enrage you as much as the last one.