Time traveling is just full of crap, innit?

[Edwardo Piet]

I have a kudos from Pool The Shite and now I feel soiled.

---

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.

My bold.

EXACTLY. It's not real time travel. Real time travel is impossible.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

"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.

Can you give me an example of a situation where that would work out?

[LastPoet]

"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.

Can you give me an example of a situation where that would work out?

Use two atomic clocks. Synch them. Put one on a geostationary sattelite and other on the ground below sattelite position. After a few days, retrieve the one on the satellite and you will see that the one on the sattelite has less time elapsed than the one on the ground.

Hell, you can even do this by taking one of the clocks to the top of a mountain.

[LastPoet]

After all, GPS satellites takes into account this. Or their accuracy would be much less.

[Edwardo Piet]

Of course clocks are just tools to measure our own perceptions of time rather than objective measures of time itself passing. What does it even mean for time to pass? There is only really ever the present at any particular time T. There's what was present before and there's what's present now and there's what will be present later. Temporally in actuality I mean, I don't mean that our perceptions can't appear to experience things from the past. When we look at a distant star we appear to be seeing light 'from the past'.... but what we're actually seeing is our own current perception of what used to be over on that distant star but is no longer there. Just like no one actually ages differently due to time travel. The clocks may change but hell, day light saving time makes the clocks change too... is that time travel?

[LastPoet]

Hammy, take a Physics course. You need better basics to understand time.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

How would that even work? Does the cell growth slow down or something when you travel at the speed of light?

So instead of: 

"If you Leave Earth at Age of 15 in a Spaceship at Speed of Light and Spends 5 Years in Space, when you Get Back You will be 20 Years old. But All Of your Friends Who were 15 when you Left Will be 65 Years Old at that Time."

It's more like?: 

"If you Leave Earth at Age of 15 in a Spaceship at Speed of Light and Spends 5 Years in Space, when you Get Back You will be 20 Years old. But All Of your Friends Who were 15 when you Left Will seem 65 Years Old at that Time to an outside observer in say, Mars."

The actual age doesn't change but it just seems like it to some other observer. Am I doing this right?

[Edwardo Piet]

Hammy, take a Physics course. You need better basics to understand time.

Physics is a branch of science that requires observers, experimentation and sums made by observers, yes?

I already addressed all this. Physics is irrelevant to the argument I'm making. Physics measures the phenomenological world and not the noumenal world. Science requires observers and subjects.

I don't care if it's the best phycisist in the world: What hasn't happened yet hasn't happened yet just as a universe can't come from 'nothing' and atoms aren't 'splittable' until you redefine them into something that is splittable.

This is how science works. They redefine things because the original definitions can't keep up with the experimentation and the evidence so they have to make new scientific models. This is all absolutely fine and all the evidence and the mathematics are correct and science is wonderful and gets results and it's thanks to it that we have modern medicine and technology. It gets results.. But you have to then understand that once a redefinition has been made we're talking about something else. The scientific model of time is not the same thing as the basic definition of time. Again, if something hasn't happened yet it hasn't happened yet. Science can't change that anymore that it can make bachelors unmarried or square-circles.

LP, take a logic course. You need better basics to understand time.

[LostLocke]

Hammy, take a Physics course. You need better basics to understand time.

I don't care if it's the best phycisist in the world: What hasn't happened yet hasn't happened yet j

No one is saying that things that haven't happened yet have happened.

---

[quote='pool the great' pid='1513049' dateline='1487559412']
"If you Leave Earth at Age of 15 in a Spaceship at Speed of Light and Spends 5 Years in Space, when you Get Back You will be 20 Years old. But All Of your Friends Who were 15 when you Left Will seem 65 Years Old at that Time to an outside observer in say, Mars."

The actual age doesn't change but it just seems like it to some other observer. Am I doing this right?

Not quite.
The guy in the ship has aged 5 years.
The guy on earth has aged 50 years.
It's just that relative to each other, they will have appeared to have aged faster or slower, but in reality they have aged exactly as they were supposed to have aged. 5 years and 50 years respectively.

[Edwardo Piet]

You're missing my point. Therefore time travel isn't possible because the future doesn't exist to visit yet.