On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:22 AM, "Edgar L. Owen" <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Liz,
The Two kinds of time theory is original with me dating back to 2007.
I've presented it in quite a clear logical framework from a couple
different perspectives in my posts to this group. The logic is quite
clear and quite convincing, but only when the underlying concept is
clearly understood. The proper approach (as for all new theories) is
to first understand and assume the concept, then follow the logic to
see whether it works or not.
The crux of the theory that absolutely must be understood to
comprehend it is the assumption there are actually two completely
distinct kinds of time. As long as one is confused with the other,
specifically as long as Present Moment time is confused with or
tried to be measured or described by clock time measures or SR clock
time theory, it will be impossible to comprehend. That is sadly true
of all critics of the theory here. There is always some attempt to
describe or critic Present Moment time with clock time theory. That
just doesn't work....
In the theory the math of SR stands unchanged and completely
accepted, it just is NOT applicable to Present Moment time in any
way whatsoever, it is only and elegantly applicable to clock time as
it always was. All of the arguments against my theory presented so
far make this mistake of trying to apply and measure Present Moment
time on the basis of the clock time theory of SR, and so they all
miss the target.
And I do give a valid convincing argument that in fact Present
Moment time is clearly not the same as clock time. It's really hard
for me to see how I could make it any clearer.
The basic problem, I fear, is that the notion of a single time is
just too massively embedded the people's psyches for them to raise
their heads and confront and understand the very obvious and easy to
prove fact that it's not true. it's like trying to convince ancient
men of the street that the earth was a sphere rather than flat. The
evidence, even the visual evidence, is quite clear, but it was still
an impossible paradigm shift for them to make.
One wonders how long it will take for people to understand and
accept that there are two kinds of time. The evidence is
overwhelming, but the paradigm shift is apparently just too much for
people....
If your theory preserves completely the math and time of special
relativity, why is some other time required? What more does P-time
explain that isn't covered by relativity?
Jason
Best,
Edgar
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 5:40:48 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
The reason I asked the original question in this thread is to get
some idea of the background to Edgar's work, in particular, I was
interest to know if there is any logical or mathematical
underpinning to it, if it is a development of ideas that have been
previously published, and so on.
Getting an instant defensive reaction - and not even from Edgar! -
seems just a wee bit over the top.
So Edgar, can you fill in the background to you work - the relevant
logic / maths, any other people's works you are building on,
theories you are extending, references, etc?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
