On 1 January 2014 03:22, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> 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.
>

I have seen nothing expressed in any formal logical system, with rigorous
derivations of consequences from the original axioms. So, we have two
distinct time dimensions. Derive the consequences mathematically, and show
what happens.

>
> 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.
>

This is because, sadly, there is no target. The world is run by invisible
pink unicorns. Always has been, always will be. It's so obvious - why oh
why can't anyone else see them?

>
> 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.
>

By actually explaining how you get around the relativity of simultaneity.
I've asked you seeveral times now. Any time is susceptible to the same
argument that Einstein used - call it P tiem or clock time or whatever. HOW
DO YOU AVOID THIS?

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to