...is stunned silence.

Your theory is based on the assumption that the interval of time identified as "the present" can be reduced to zero and that time passes directly from the future to the past. Your theory hinges upon your assertion that "the present has no time."

You've assigned a zero value to the present and done away with it altogether.

You can't do that. It's not allowed.

We experience the present, and it takes time to do it. How long is the present? I have no idea. It depends on who you ask. But you can't define its length in time as zero.

Let's begin by assigning a generous amount of time to the present; one second. That's too much you say? Fine. Divide it in half.

What? A half a second is still too much for the interval between the future and the past? Fine. Divide it in half again.

Oh come on now! Surely you can go along with 1/4 of a second for the present, can't you? No? OK, divide it in half again.

Are you beginning to see where this is headed? You may divide time in half as often as you wish, but you will never arrive at an interval of zero. Oh, you can talk about time as it approaches the limit of zero, but you can't ever get there.

For this reason I cannot accept your theory, as interesting as it is. You cannot simply declare that no time elapses between the future and the past.

Paul