Georgina:
You've convinced me now that there really is something pathological about time deniers. The inability to comprehend concepts in writing is literally breath-taking. You're telling me that I'm not being logical about saying that there was time before there were people and you attempt to defend that statement by saying if I went back in time in a time machine there would still be a brain? A time machine? I was merely saying "go back" as a reference as it is used in schools all the time. As in "looking back"... You actually spent time trying to argue this point when I think it's pretty clear what I was talking about. Talk about no brain...
1. But there's more - "Time is the sequencing of events carried out by the mind". More nonsense. I can prove that by presenting the video tape of an event. The tape counter will show exactly how long the event took place and what happened down to a 30th of a second. The mind has nothing to do with it. If it did, then what appears on the video could be ordered differently when someone else looks at it.
2."The argument that time still passes even if things are stationary doesn't hold because nothing is stationary..." Are you on drugs? These are the kinds of pathetic word games that you time deniers are left to play. If nothing is "stationary" then nothing would be where you left it. Is that the kind of chaotic world you live in? Stationary refers to physical location, not vibratory atomic state. Perhaps you should try using a dictionary some time...
3. Sequences are time ordered per the frame of reference in which the sequences are observed. No violation of special relativity involved, just the mental dexterity to resolve it. BTW, viewing of events at the block universe level corrects such things as cause and effect confusion. Knowing how to determine causal or ordered arrangements is possible despite such things as time dilation, etc. Your flash-bang example I've already dealt with in relation to supermassive black holes and how they don't fit into a single reference frame for all observers. It's turned up as a problem with data analysis from the Chandra telescope for NASA. I'm way ahead of you here. I had a high school kid working on the same concept as a school project two months ago.
4. "Two events occurring simultaneously in an objective space without time may be observed as simultaneous by very close by stander or to have an order of occurrence according to a more distant observer. " You can't have an event that takes place without time. You take away time and your events won't happen because there will be no dimension for them to happen in. Space is where things are. Time is the dimension where events are. You'll never prove other wise, no matter how many word games you play. If you could you would have done it by now. Not even Julian Barbour has done it and he's had to concede that he may be wrong.
While you and other time deniers are going on this children's crusade (Barbour refers to his own child-like belief that because he can't see time that it mustn't exist) to rid the world of time, I am researching how it works and how it may be controlled.
I've been busy doing real work and haven't had time to reply to any comments. I will do that and then probably quit using this forum for a while because it looks like a pretty big waste of time if people have to defend their theories with word games.