Time traveling is just full of crap, innit?

[LostLocke]

I mean if we are defining 60 seconds as 60 seconds then... I mean.... any amount of time whatever that amount of time is is still that amount of time regardless of speed

That's true, to the person in the same reference frame as the 60 seconds, but not necessarily to someone outside that frame.

Let's say we run a little test. We get together with perfectly timed and synced watches. At exactly noon, 12:00:00, I will instantly accelerate to the speed of light. I'll watch my watch and as soon as it hits 12:01:00, 60 seconds, I decelerate back to "normal" speed. If we compare watches, you're saying you would expect both of them to read 12:01:00, is that correct? But they wouldn't. Your watch would read 12:10:00. As far as you're concerned, I've traveled for 10 minutes, but to me, I've only traveled for one minute.

Same principle goes for speed.
If I'm on a train going 50 mph and I throw a ball at 10 mph in the same direction the train is traveling, how fast is the ball going? First reaction might be, 60 mph. That's true, if you're on the ground watching the train go by. If you're on the train with me the ball is going 10 mph. If you're in a car going 60 mph in the same direction, the ball isn't moving. If you're in a car going 60 mph in the opposite direction the ball is going 120 mph. All of the answers can be correct at the exact same time.
So in the watch test, asking what the "real" amount of time that went by was, would be akin to asking which speed is the "real" speed of the ball.

[Edwardo Piet]

Again though what actual reference frame are we talking about. If what's 10 minutes for me is 1 minute for you then relatively those are different times but objectively if 1 minute passes 1 minute passes, if 10 minutes passes 10 minutes passes. It doesn't matter what the clocks or watches say. You don't need time keeping for time to exist. Time is objectively what is at time T. Whether it's what was time T, what is time T or what will be time T and then is quite simply then and now is quite simply now.

You're talking about 'time passing' differently from different frames of reference. But science can only measure phenomenologically: it relies on observers and their tools and consciousness. Even clocks and watches are extentions of this because we have to be consciously aware of them to use them.

Objectively speaking does time even pass? I don't think so. Time is just a concept. All there is is now. We don't actually experience time passing, it's an illusion.

We can't experience time passing.

Which one of your experiences would be the experience of time passing?

Watch this video you learn more on that:

[Alex K]

Again though what actual reference frame are we talking about. If what's 10 minutes for me is 1 minute for you then relatively those are different times but objectively if 1 minute passes 1 minute passes, if 10 minutes passes 10 minutes passes. It doesn't matter what the clocks or watches say. You don't need time keeping for time to exist. Time is objectively what is at time T. Whether it's what was time T, what is time T or what will be time T and then is quite simply then and now is quite simply now.

You're talking about 'time passing' differently from different frames of reference. But science can only measure phenomenologically: it relies on observers and their tools and consciousness. Even clocks and watches are extentions of this because we have to be consciously aware of them to use them.

Objectively speaking does time even pass? I don't think so. Time is just a concept. All there is is now We don't actually experience time passing, it's an illusion.

Watch this video you learn more on that:

I don't understand what you are saying. Are you arguing that there should be one objective time for everyone? That's simply not true!

[ignoramus]

Let's just say the illusion of time is subjective!

[I_am_not_mafia]

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect. But actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it’s more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey… stuff.

[Edwardo Piet]

I don't understand what you are saying. Are you arguing that there should be one objective time for everyone? That's simply not true!

Lol. It's objectively not true for everyone that there objectively isn't a time for everyone? Lol.

You gotta define time first.

If we're talking about different speeds and points in space being different times for different people then what does that even mean?

It may seem to take so many light years from the light from a very distant star to get here so what we're seeing is actually "in the past" but, no, not really, what's really happening is that what we're seeing is our own experiential copy and reflection of the past and not the past itself because it's impossible to experience the past now because the past isn't now the past is before now.

What we're seeing isn't the same as what's actually happening. How we think we experience time isn't what's actually happening. Even though we temporally experience things in the past because of distance and it takes time for light to travel.... what's over there on that distant star is still over there now at the same time as what's over here is what's over here now even though what we experience is a visual reflection of what is no longer there now, what's over there now is still over there now. What's actually there now, I mean, as opposed to what we appear to experience.

We're not really seeing what's in the past because we can't see what's in the past NOW because now isn't the past. What we're seeing is current light that took time to reach here but what we're actually seeing isn't really there anymore.

It's all now. There is only now. What is happening is now, what did happen happened when it did as opposed to now and what will happen hasn't happened yet. Regardless of light, regardless of speeds, regardless of temporal experience, which means regardless of science because even science requires the observer and experience. Then is objectively then, now is objectively now... temporal experience is not objective and it cannot be measured objectively (well, not to an absolute level I mean. Science can gather the facts and the evidence but it still requires a subjective observer: hence why it's relative and not absolutely objective) but time is objective in the sense that now is now and then is then. Absolutely. Not relatively. Because science cannot measure or test the absoluteness of time it can only measure the relativity of temporal experience because it requires an observer which requires a subject which is subjective and experiential and relative. To define and comprehend the absoluteness of "What is time?" as opposed to the relativity of temporal experience you need logic instead of science.

So no, time travel is not possible in the way most people mean. I mean sure maybe in other senses.... I'm a time traveller myself. I travel... mostly forwards.... at the same speed as everyone else.

Lol but seriously not really. It seems that way. Really there's just the pulse of now. I don't go from the past to the present to the future. The past and the future don't exist they existed and will exist respectively.

---

Again though what actual reference frame are we talking about. If what's 10 minutes for me is 1 minute for you then relatively those are different times but objectively if 1 minute passes 1 minute passes, if 10 minutes passes 10 minutes passes. It doesn't matter what the clocks or watches say. You don't need time keeping for time to exist. Time is objectively what is at time T. Whether it's what was time T, what is time T or what will be time T and then is quite simply then and now is quite simply now.

You're talking about 'time passing' differently from different frames of reference. But science can only measure phenomenologically: it relies on observers and their tools and consciousness. Even clocks and watches are extentions of this because we have to be consciously aware of them to use them.

Objectively speaking does time even pass? I don't think so. Time is just a concept. All there is is now We don't actually experience time passing, it's an illusion.

Watch this video you learn more on that:

I don't understand what you are saying. Are you arguing that there should be one objective time for everyone? That's simply not true!

There is one objective time for everyone wherever whenever and that's now (or any other point in time that was then the 'now' of that specific time point). In the past at time T there was an objective time for everyone and that was then. And the same goes for the future. There are differences in measuring it but measuring it is subjective because it requires a subject and an observer to measure it. There is objectively one time for everyone at any specific point in time and if no one existed and there were no observers there would still objectively be one time for everything at any specific point in time. There would simply be no temporal experience, subject, observers or scientific way to test it or clocks or time keeping. But then would still be then and now would still be now. And time T would still be time T even if time T couldn't be measured or labelled or called time T. It would just be whenever it was.

[AFTT47]

The past and the future don't exist they existed and will exist respectively.

Ham, do you realize you're contradicting Relativity here? General Relativity says that the past and future do exist.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Define "exist"..?

If we define exist as whatever that is present in the present then past and future does not exist...

---

That's true, to the person in the same reference frame as the 60 seconds, but not necessarily to someone outside that frame.

So here's my confusion: if 60 seconds is 60 second regardless of speed for a person then how does one person age faster than the other?

[Edwardo Piet]

The past and the future don't exist they existed and will exist respectively.

Ham, do you realize you're contradicting Relativity here? General Relativity says that the past and future do exist.

You didn't read my post did you?

General Relativity is a scientific theory of time and science requires an observer. Science can't measure what actually exists in objective reality it can only measure our experiences of it. Science is phenomenological. What was at time T objecitvely and logically is at time T and not at time T-1 or T+1. That's absolute, not relative and science can't measure that without an observer which means it's measuring the temporal experiences of an observer and not time itself.

General Relativity cannot possibly measure time it can only measure temporal experience because that's all science can do: Measure experiences.

I don't care if saying the past existed rather than exists and the future will exist rather than does exist 'contradicts General Relativity'... if I'm 'contradicting General Relativity' then you're contradicting logical certainty and arguing for a logical impossiblity or you're equivocating. Because I'm NOT contradicting General Relativity because I'm not talking about the relative temporal experiences of time as measured by science... I'm talking about time itself. The past is not the present or the future. Only the past can have already happened, only the present is currently happening and only the future will happen. And that's all basic logic and true by definition and science can't touch that. Science requires an observer and can only measure the phenomenological experiences of time. It cannot measure time itself. Science measures the phenomenal world that we live in it can't possibly touch the noumenal world which may or may not exist but if it does it certainly isn't logically contradictory. if you're saying that the past the future and the present can happen at the same time then you're literally saying what isn't happening now is happening now and that is just logically impossible. That's not what General Relativity says. General Relativity is a theory of science based on experimentation and mathematical sums that all require obserbers and subjects and his hence ultimately based on experiences of reality and not reality itself.

Science's measuring of reality =/= reality

Phenomenological =/= Noumenological

Temporal experience =/= Time

Evidences and theories based on experiences about experiences about temporal experiences or tools measuring temporal experiences that themselves don't have experiences but require experiences and can only be understood by experiencers/subjects =/= logical certainty that what hasn't happened yet or has happened before is literally and by definition absolutely not what is happening now.

You can't travel to the future because it hasn't happened yet. You can't travel to the past because it isn't there anymore.

You can travel through space and appear to be travelling at different speeds, and yes only appear to be because appearances is all that science can measure--science works phenomenologically--and then the time measured is different for different refrerence points, but no one will ever be able to build a machine or a space ship or anything that will literally allow them to visit what is no longer happening or what hasn't happened yet because that litereally makes no sense and it's only equivocations over defintiions of time and the lack of comprehending the fact that science doesn't actually measure reality itself it only measures our experiences of it and the fact that logical certainties like something being true by defintiion cannot possibly be defeated.

Tautologies > science. Science will never be able to collect evidence of an unmarried batchelor without equivocating or changing the definiition. Just like it only discovered splittable atoms by first redefining an atom to mean something that can be splittable. Just like how Lawrence Krauss can discover that the universe came from 'nothing' only by redefining 'nothing' to mean a little more than nothing. Just like how if you want to call travelling through space at different speeds making our temporal experiences seem like we're seeing things from the past or future and our clocks are different: If you want to call that 'time travel', fine. But we literally aren't actually time travelling in the sense of what hasn't happened yet is happening already because that's literally logically impossible and literally makes no sense. The future by definition hasn't happened yet so whatever we are seeing it certainly isn't the future even if it seems that way.

[LostLocke]

So here's my confusion: if 60 seconds is 60 second regardless of speed for a person then how does one person age faster than the other?

"60 seconds is 60 seconds" only for people within the same reference frame. For people outside that frame, it's not 60 seconds.
Technically, no one is aging any differently.
Ship guy, experiences and ages 5 years. Earth guy experiences and ages 50 years. Relative to their time frames, they are both aging normally. Relative to the other's time frame, ship guy appears to have aged slower to Earth guy, while Earth guy appears to have aged faster to ship guy.