4 ms·

> Well, yes, but that means that my past and yours still exists as a real place that others can visit, in some sense. That's why I gave the example. Of course,

> Well, yes, but that means that my past and yours still exists as a real place that others can visit, in some sense. That's why I gave the example. Of course, that visitation has already happened in our past. If the other person can travel to "my past", can their point of departure be said to be "in my present"? Does this fulfil the math? At T[0][theirs] and T[0][ours], they decide to travel very fast towards us. At T[42][theirs], they meet us, but it's T[-23][ours] At T[42][ours], we remember meeting them It bends my head out of shape, which is fun... but is it "right"? And is it even possible to say T[0][theirs] === T[0][ours]? Is it all better modelled by using T-theirs[0] and T-ours[0]... and some rule like "T-theirs[n] can never = T-ours[n]" ?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tsimionescu 5y ago
No I had made some errors when claiming that. Their time of departure will always appear, both to us and to them, to have been further back in time than their point of arrival. We will disagree on how much farther in the past, but we will agree that it is in the past. For example, if they are moving at almost the speed of light, and zipping past us, to them it may seem that they left their planet a few seconds ago, and only traveled a few meters; but to us and to their friends back home, it may seem like it took them 1 million years and they moved almost 1 million light-years. We will also disagree on the order of some events, but only those that have already happened from both our perspectives.