OTOH time is relative to the observer and certain universe phenomena, such as black holes, can distort how time passes in different points of the space dimension. The general idea that a point in time is how we define a particular snapshot of particles is probably right, but time as a dimension also appears to be a bit more complex than how we perceive it from Earth, which we should also not forget.
"Time", aka chemical and physical reactions, can happen faster or slower depending on the environment. But this is only slightly different than putting food in the fridge. The food will mold slower, but it's not time travel.
The closest we can get to faking time travel is by manipulating the speed of a subset of reactions (like our body's aging) by going the speed of light or freezing ourselves, etc. But it's still fake, "time" continues, you just managed to manipulate specific reactions in a peculiar way.
So special relativity, which is a theory that comes out of thought experiments and pure mathematics, is "just a chemical reaction". How do you explain that an observer outside of a moving frame of reference will also see things differently?
Also, can you explain what you think "physical reactions" are? What causes them? Why would they happen at different speeds if time doesn't exist?
Can you explain which of the two statements you disagree with and provide an explanation:
1. The speed of light is constant in all frames of reference.
2. The laws of Physics apply in all inertial frames of reference.
If you disagree with neither of these statements, then the entirety of special relativity must follow from your logic. Which means you have to explain why these physical effects happen without being able to explain it through time dilation and other effects.
