Time doesn't actually exist - discuss

Well, given that we have an equalateral triangle type setup, when person B starts moving towards person A, at first he will move a bit closer to person C, then at the half-way point he'll start moving a bit away from person C, until person B reaches person A. So during the first half of person B's journey, person C would observe spatial contraction, and in the second half observe spatial expansion. But because it's half of one and half of the other, the net contraction that person C observed would be 0.

As for whether to use the word "appears", the distance does actually shrink, but I think only if you are the one observing it. An example to illustrate this: muons created in the Earth's atmosphere travelling towards the ground. The muons travel at the speed of light, but muons decay very quickly and disappear - they shouldn't last long enough to travel from the Earth's atmosphere to the ground, even if travelling at the speed of light. Yet, we can detect them at ground level. The answer to the problem is that from the muon's perspective, they are stationary and the Earth is travelling at the speed of light towards them. Lorentz contraction occurs and the space really does shrink, so they have to travel less far, so they can reach the ground before decaying. We can only detect them when they reach us though, so we can't see any Lorentz contraction acting the other way, so to our detectors the muons just show up inexplicably. So if the space appears to shrink, it effectively really has shrunk, but from other perspectives it may not have shrunk, and really didn't shrink. It's a counter-intuitive subject.

No I studied software engineering.

Ok yes in a triangle setup, thanks that makes sense!

Interesting example actually, the same way they provided more evidence for relativity in 1986 was with muons, they whirled them around a small circular lap and measured how many laps they did. They knew the rate of decay and so predicted how many laps they should have done but in fact they did a lot more because of time dilation and spacial contraction. Physics is awesome

Oh really? You're very well informed on the subject of relativity

Are we defining it to be a physical property of the universe? In which case time likely doesn't exist, much like centimeters don't exist or degrees don't exist.

This problem is deeply related to how we define existence.

Are we defining it as "to be conceivable within our minds"? In which case time exists, but by this unicorns also exist, as well as the word "flabberdicklewadd".

Are we defining it to be a physical property of the universe? In which case time likely doesn't exist, much like centimeters don't exist or degrees don't exist.

Are we defining it to be "is present within the universe AND its presence in it is independent on from the human mind"? Well then we have to further define mind-independence. Tables are causally dependent on humans on Earth as without humans tables would not exist. However tables are no meta-physically dependent on humans as if all humans died tables would remain. Maths and time on the other hand would not. They are both casually and meta-physically dependent on humans which says a lot about their "reality" and their "existence". And so under this definition of existence time wouldn't exist.

Does the truth "1+1=2" exist? It's going to be tough to argue that it does exist. Yet this is precisely what you need to do if you think that mathematical truths/time based truths continue to exist without human minds and are therefore NOT metaphysically dependent on us. Usually it requires belief in abstract objects which itself generally requires belief in a god for pragmatic reasons. Not something most scientists (who are generally philosophical naturalists) want to believe in.

I think both of those retorts are contentious interpretions of modern science...

Maybe I misunderstand the debate. I've studied realism/anti-realism elsewhere but not specifically the philosophy of space/time yet.