Absolute Simultaneity! Shalt Thou Be Back Hereinafter?

[Guest Domenico]

In order to come to grips with the relativistic concept of simultaneity, I shall begin the argument by saying that when we attempt to define synchronism and simultaneity of spatially separated events, it is of cardinal importance that all thought experiments must comply with the world we live in. In agreement with the above, let us investigate an event at a stationary point A which is simultaneous, the meaning of which is supported by synchronized clocks, to an event at a stationary point B spatially separated from point A. If a light ray is sent at t time from point A to reach point B at tʹ (t^primed) time and to be reflected back to reach point A at tʺ (t^doubleprimed) time, we may represent these two events with figure 1. If we now assume that time, in its fully expanded dimension, is made everywhere and everywhen in the same way and that it is processed at the same speed, we can see that the round trip (2AB) divided by the time (tʺ minus t) will give us the speed at which the light ray is travelling; that is to say, the speed of light which is also the speed at which time and space are processed.

Let us now consider once again our two systems A and B separated from each other by 4 light-minutes and ready to send a light ray from a tower whose steps it takes 4 minutes to climb. We can see that if we accept the operator of A to be half-way down from the tower after sending the light ray and the operator of B to be half-way up before receiving the light ray (in a similar tower) as being simultaneous events; we can likewise see that we must make a distinction in kind between the local time “t” of any system, the cosmic time “c” which, mark you, is a finite expanding medium, and the physical concept of simultaneity.

A little earlier I made a reference to simultaneity by synchronized clocks to satisfy the conditions demanded by special relativity. Notwithstanding the climate of existing opinions; relativity of simultaneity, in line with the theory herein propounded, signifies that any given space region is classified by its own unit measure of time. In other words, I am saying that a space length possesses a physical property given to it by the process of space extension. Once that we take into account the time difference between two given space regions, we will have no problem in establishing absolute simultaneity. Indeed, our objective is the simultaneity of events, not the simultaneity of times (hours, minutes, seconds).

The read-out of synchronized clocks, even though has been part of our physical laws for a long time, it has nothing to do with the simultaneity of spatially separated events. The problem seems to be one of interpretation. It appears that the confusion of thought is due to a misuse of language. To come away from such a confusion, we must conduct a more careful analysis of language. More precisely, words such as contemporaneous, synchronous, simultaneous and the like define what is done or what happens at the same time; that is, at the same instant of existence which by hypothesis it has nothing to do with clock-time as speculated by Einstein and his followers.

I ought to further qualify the above statement. If I phone someone in London from my home in Calabria; at the end of our conversation, chances are we both say “ciao” at the same time (not clock-time); that is, we utter the same word simultaneously. The fact that we are separated by a spatial distance and therefore by a temporal interval does not destroy the simultaneity of those two events. The same thing can be said on a cosmic scale because of the natural time-fall. In brief, the relation 1 second of time = 300 million metres of space makes time a function of spatial motion which means that a body in motion with respect to a permanent non-zero source of energy, in terms of pure definition, is itself a clock. For example, if we have infinitely many clocks along a spatial path, they might separate two given events, but do not; I repeat, do not interfere with their simultaneity if these events have been performed simultaneously. Rejecting simultaneity of spatially separated events, means denying the physical character of time existing all along the spatial path separating these events.

Let me now elaborate on the second principle of special relativity originally put in the following terms: any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of coordinates with the determined speed c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body. This is generally understood to mean that the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference. From this assumption it follows that c+v=c, and c−v=c. According to these expressions a moving observer would experience no change in time, hence no change in frequency, and no red or blue shift which, according to astronomical observations, is supposed to exist. It is my view that the mathematical expression c±v=c is indeterminate and its significance needs to be specified further. In a while, I shall try to clear the meaning of this paradoxical expression, here I remind the reader that the physical concept of length is common to time and space and this, as we shall see, will explain the aforesaid paradox. In the meantime, let us look at some elementary mathematics coming from special relativity itself.

Let us now imagine a spherical system S at rest and a similar spherical system Sʹ moving with velocity v in the x direction relative to S. The equation of the surface enforceable from within, in either system is:

 

whereas we shall find that the same surface of radius ct when viewed from without is given by:

 

where the radius ct is given as being common to both inertial systems. Thus, our moving spherical system when viewed from the stationary system S acquires the form of an ellipsoid of revolution, or spheroid, see figure 2a. These conditions are reciprocal when viewed from the moving system Sʹ, as clearly shown in figure 2b.

We can see here that (c±v=c) acquires significance in particular whenever the concept of length is being enforced. This length affects the relationship between time and space in the sense that both are made by the length of the wave, and both are made by the same process; and, incidentally, if we interfere with one by mathematical necessity we are interfering with the other.

In conclusion, if we give for granted that the temporal surface of space is renewing itself at each and every second of time. It will be clear that while the coordinates of a geometric space can be mathematically primed (transformed) without loss of generality, the same transformation whenever applied to free (optical) space makes no sense unless we take into consideration that all along the spatial path we are dealing with a permanent non-zero source of energy. In point of fact, we are in no position to generalize and conclude, with what it appears to be a logical conclusion, that a system of coordinates in free (optical) space can be transformed from a stationary to a moving frame and/or vice versa. For example, any transformation from our time dimension (stationary frame) to a new time dimension (moving frame) is a one way affair since the new time dimension proper of the moving frame is characterized by a new and shorter unit measure of time and because of it our physical laws are no longer valid in that frame.

With regard to a transformation within our fully expanded dimension; a physical body can never be transported through free (optical) space without losing its shape and/or dynamic properties; never mind a physical body, not even an electromagnetic wave can do it. The wave, in fact, in displaying the redshift shows clearly that it can be transformed if and only if we account for the lapse of time, only then, the wavelength is the same both at the source and at the receiving end.

Think fast please. The two spatially separated waves, after we account for the time separating them, become one and the same; the two spatially separated events, after we account for the time separating them, become simultaneous events if they have been performed simultaneously. If this doesn’t do it, I must apologize for not being able, here and now, to do any better.

To recapture some harmony and to answer the title tag of my thread, I shall say that the acceptance and reinstatement of absolute simultaneity is a foregone conclusion. I say this because even the most loyal proponents of Relativity will tell you that the relativity of simultaneity would fall apart if the speed of light were not the same in both the stationary and the moving frame.

[LaurieAG]

Hi Domenico,

 

To recapture some harmony and to answer the title tag of my thread, I shall say that the acceptance and reinstatement of absolute simultaneity is a foregone conclusion. I say this because even the most loyal proponents of Relativity will tell you that the relativity of simultaneity would fall apart if the speed of light were not the same in both the stationary and the moving frame.

 

Have you ever thought about the paths that light would follow to an observer if it came from a star rotating around a galactic center, the view field of the observer was greater than the width of the diameter of the rotation and the star took as much time to complete a revolution as it would take for the light to reach the observer?

 

If the observation point is stationary during the discrete observation period then any relative distortion would have to come from the light coming into that relatively stationary location. Make sure you look at things from the perspective of the how light leaving the source would come into the observer. You just step through each quarter of a rotation and move the 2 points of the leading edge forwards until you get to the observer.

[Guest Domenico]

Hello LaurieAG,

I fail to see in your post the pertinence to my last paragraph quoted by you. It would be nice of you, however, to elaborate a bit further and let me share the meaning of what comes out of the meanderings of your intellect. I think that in my thread there is plenty of food for thought, and it lands itself to an intelligent exchange of different points of view, particularly if you are a relativist or a relativity buff.

[LaurieAG]

Hi Domenico,

 

I fail to see in your post the pertinence to my last paragraph quoted by you.

 

I didn't want to quote your entire post so I'll start at the beginning.

 

In order to come to grips with the relativistic concept of simultaneity, I shall begin the argument by saying that when we attempt to define synchronism and simultaneity of spatially separated events, it is of cardinal importance that all thought experiments must comply with the world we live in

 

If you have difficulty understanding how my diagram relates to the world we live in, get a friend to rotate a torch (battery or flame) in a circle in the dark. If you observe a circle of light or flame then you can work back from the source to the observer, If you know why you see a circle then you understand what I refer to and we can contine this discussion.

[Guest Domenico]

Hi Domenico,I didn't want to quote your entire post so I'll start at the beginning.If you have difficulty understanding how my diagram relates to the world we live in, get a friend to rotate a torch (battery or flame) in a circle in the dark. If you observe a circle of light or flame then you can work back from the source to the observer, If you know why you see a circle then you understand what I refer to and we can contine this discussion.

Hello LaurieAG,

I don’t think I need a friend holding a torch, thanks for the suggestion all the same. My reference to thought experiment and our world was meant as a reminder that when we make a supposition, we must be more sensible and more careful. If we entertain ourselves with a twin heading west and after going around the universe coming back to the same spot from east; than, we are being insensible and careless.

With reference to your mental exercise in cosmological matters, we must leave it at that. I prefer to play my games in our backyard rather than doing it 13 and half billion years down the road. Over there, things are too hazy and too speculative, even for someone like myself confined as I am, with my unorthodox thinking, within the speculative science.