Let us go back to "cold" hard logic."Time"

[Edwardo Piet]

You're doing everything you can to weasel out of the fact that you have a conviction which flies in the face of what theoretical physicists have been saying for over 100 years.

100% strawman I've already said I agree with all that. I just know what that actually means. I know science doesn't touch noumena because that makes no sense and is the opposite of science. The subject here is logic and definitions and things-in-themselves, not science or phenomena and you very clearly don't know the difference. We're talking about the logic of time here, which is noumenological, not the science of time, which is phenomenological.

When you don't understand my position you make a strawman of my position, it's as simple as that.

---

First of all, if time is infinite, it does not follow that the future already exists, only that events that have not yet occurred will continue to occur forever, that is, that we won't 'run out of future' for things to happen in.

The very concept of a future that already exists makes zero sense. The future is what hasn't happened yet.

---

I used to have a similar stumbling block to relativity and time.  Surely, they must be referring to our experience of time..how could time itself actually pass differently or not be concordant in different frames of reference?  

Since one can not travel faster than light, one might conclude that a human can never travel farther from Earth than 40 light years if the traveller is active between the ages of 20 and 60. One would easily think that a traveller would never be able to reach more than the very few solar systems which exist within the limit of 20–40 light years from the earth. But that would be a mistaken conclusion. Because of time dilation, a hypothetical spaceship can travel thousands of light years during the pilot's 40 active years. If a spaceship could be built that accelerates at a constant 1 , it will, after a little less than a year, be travelling at almost the speed of light as seen from Earth. This is described by:

where v(t) is the velocity at a time, t, a is the acceleration of 1g and t is the time as measured by people on Earth.[40] Therefore, after 1 year of accelerating at 9.81 m/s2, the spaceship will be travelling at v = 0.77c relative to Earth. Time dilation will increase the travellers life span as seen from the reference frame of the Earth to 2.7 years, but his lifespan measured by a clock travelling with him will not change. During his journey, people on Earth will experience more time than he does. A 5-year round trip for him will take 6½ Earth years and cover a distance of over 6 light-years. A 20-year round trip for him (5 years accelerating, 5 decelerating, twice each) will land him back on Earth having travelled for 335 Earth years and a distance of 331 light years.[41] A full 40-year trip at 1 g will appear on Earth to last 58,000 years and cover a distance of 55,000 light years. A 40-year trip at 1.1 g will take 148,000 Earth years and cover about 140,000 light years. A one-way 28 year (14 years accelerating, 14 decelerating as measured with the astronaut's clock) trip at 1 g acceleration could reach 2,000,000 light-years to the Andromeda Galaxy.[41] This same time dilation is why a muon travelling close to c is observed to travel much further than c times its half-life (when at rest).[42]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

Well the entirety of science is about our human experience therefore the entirety of physics is about our human experience, which includes special relativity. Scientists don't study the universe from the universe's perspective, now do they? When a scientist uses a microscope or a telescope or a handron colider or does mathematical equations in all cases the starting point is a human with their senses, yes? Even when scientists discovered that bats see the world through echolocation they discovered it through their own human senses. Science is ultimately about the reality of the world from our own human perspective. It's by definition impossible to study reality outside of experience because studying itself is an experiential activity.

Logic is about what is and isn't possible. You don't have to fail to experience a square circle to know that a square circle is impossible. And you don't have to fail to experience that which doesn't exist yet already existing to know that that's impossible. That's the only way to figure out the noumena, to exclude the parts that are logically impossible and see what's left over.

Science uses models to understand the world that we experience. There is no proof in science that time itself exists outside our experience because there cannot be because what science tests and studies is the experiential world.

Scientists have also said that time travel is possible but only forwards. It's possible to travel to the future but not to the past. Again, talk about misleading. Science has already redefined time and time travel so travelling to the future in the scientific sense wouldn't be anything like time travel in the way we normally understand it. It wouldn't be visiting what hasn't happened yet. Because that doesn't even make any sense. If science were to discover a square circle it would first have to redefine the concept of a square circle into something that is logically possible and that is also possible for us to at least infer via a scientist's experience of the world. Which wouldn't and couldn't be a square circle. The original definition of an atom is something unsplittable, so when scientists "split the atom" they certainly didn't split the unsplittable and when Laurence Krauss said the universe came from nothing he certainly wasn't talking about literally nothing. And when he said he really was talking about literally nothing, fellow scientists (and a bunch of philosophers) rightly told him off for it. The scientific concept of "empty space teeming with quantum activity" is clearly not nothing.