The degree of non-simultaneousness

[Intergenuity]

To post my first thread in a brand new forum I thought I'd start with the complex issue of non-simultaneousness as suggested by SRT.

To introduce myself i would claim no particular physics ability however I have been searching for a solution to this problem for some time and have a farely reasonable grasp of the question and hope that I can achieve also a reasonable grasp of the answer.
I have found in following many discussions about SRT that inevitably all comes down to the issue of simultaneousness and what that means.
Simultaneousness of course deals almost exclusively with the issue of time or timing. Absolute time or universal time is ruled out according to SRT however so often it is ruled in when SRT is under discussion.

It is a given that time dilates with relative velocity, this I have no quarms about. However does this also imply that the NOW is some how non-simultaneous as well. Most SRT'ist will state this as being so but fail to show what degree of non-simultaneousness is involved.
The following diagrams pose two possible positions
Diagram 1 shows time dilation [the length of the grey scale blocks are indictative of time units] yet maintaining a common NOW betwen relative frames. Diagram 2 shows non-simultaneous NOWS with dilation present as what I believe is the current view of SRT.

The issue then if diagram 2 is true how much time is involved in the non-simultaneous NOWS and how far into the past of the other frame can an object go.

Does the effect of time dilation increase the gap between the Nows and if so how is this calculated. When selcting a RF it must be at rest in it's NOW.
http://www.paygency.com/Diagrams/relativenow.jpg

I do not expect an easy answer but I am sure that there is one, if not SRT can possibly be in difficulty.

Care to discuss?

[MacM]

I find the only issue of simultaneity is due to information propagation delay and nothing to do with what is called "time dilation". I find td is a mis-nomer and should be called "clock dilation" which has nothing to do with a change in the underlying universal time interval.

That is clocks do not actually measure time but only mark the time interval at a given frequency as a function of internal energy. It is a measurement change and not a time change perse. (my opinion).

[Intergenuity]

MacM,
I can't say that I disagree.
I wish only to explore SRT thought on the subject. Clarify the position of non-simultaneousness as considered by SRT.

I believe that once this issue is clarified SRT will stand of Fall according to it's own possibly circular use of time.

1] It could be argued in the 'Twins paradox' that the moving twin just simply retards the prgress of time, so that the stationary twin moves further into the other twins future expanding the gap between NOWS as time passes for both of the twins.
This means that the moving twin may be 20 years old and the other 30 years old but becasue the Nows are 10 years apart and not because one has aged faster or slower. A form of time travel....which means the younger twin would have to exist only in the past of the older twin, thus the younger twin does no longer exist in the older twins reality - Now. [ non-simultaneousness]

2] The other angle is that the younger twin whilst maintaining his same NOW position with the older twin, simply has a slower atomic rate [due to higher relative velocity] thus ages slower yet sharing the same NOW as the other twin. Thus the universal present is maintained and time dilation is still allowed to occur. [simultaneousness]

I gather that you are inclined to agree with the later position ?[simultaneusness]

[MacM]

MacM,I gather that you are inclined to agree with the later position ?[simultaneusness]


Actually I am not convienced that what they call time dilation has anything to do with time at all. I see it as an illusion of measurement. that is it should be called "clock dilation" and not "time dilation".

[Intergenuity]

so how do you explain clock dilation?

[MacM]

so how do you explain clock dilation?

The vibration frequency of atoms is an internal energy function. So the clock frequency changes and it marks the time interval at a different frequency but time didn't change. It would be simular to saying the batteries of your timex are getting low. When your watch loses time, did time change or it affect your aging?

[Intergenuity]

ha...MacM that's exactly what I am talking about...when I said in my naive way "atomic slowing"

edit: maybe aging is an incorrect word to use.

I see a state where ordinary velocity requires slowing of atomic function so that the state of inherant 'c' is maintained. Thus the object continues to change at the original inherant rate even though it is now moving in excess of that original rate. Sort of compensating for the extra velocity beyond it's rest rate of 'c'.

[geistkiesel]

ha...MacM that's exactly what I am talking about...when I said in my naive way "atomic slowing"

edit: maybe aging is an incorrect word to use.

I see a state where ordinary velocity requires slowing of atomic function so that the state of inherant 'c' is maintained. Thus the object continues to change at the original inherant rate even though it is now moving in excess of that original rate. Sort of compensating for the extra velocity beyond it's rest rate of 'c'.
This is my first post on this forum and the first interesting thread I spotted.

Integenuity, let me suggest a slightly different angle in which velocity is applied as the accumulated causative parameter of time dilation.

Consider the simple law of inertia regarding the outside force requirement for the perturbation of uniformly moving systems (I suppose we should also recognize internal generated forces in nuclear deacay for one). An inertial frame moving through eternity with a uniform velocity cannot possibly accumulate physical effects. The state is invariant absent the application of forces on the fame.

Three fames moving with respect to each other as V1 > V2 > V3, means that the higher velocity frame has undergone greater acceleration than that experienced by V2 and V1. We assume all three originated from a common inertial frame Ve. During the acceleration process each frame underwent accelration that elevated their unique energy state defined as E = 1/2(mv^2).

The frames were subject to forces of varying degree. When the acceleration forces went to zero each frame began the uniform motion leg of their journey.
Everything occured during acceleration.
The measure of velocty is a measure of an energy state, which can be related to mass variations, but uniform velocity carrries no motion or energy state power related potential, nor direction altering power. Uniform motion is neutral physical state generating no forces. Physical affects attributable to the total motion are confined to that increment of motion during accelration of the inertial frames.

Acceleration is everything. If you have no acceleration you have nothing.

Simultaneity

A very simple experiment will relieve tons of misapplied understanding of simultaneity.

A point photon source (and one of three synchrinized clocks) emits oppositely directed photons, L and R, at two photon sensitive clock/mirror devices Lc and Lr located equidistant from the photon emitter. The clock/mrror frame is moving with velocity v with respect tothe point if the emitted photons. This point, in a all of its abstraction, is an invariant point (IP) spatially defined. Disregarding technological difficulties in maintaining a location of the IP, there is no theoretical or physical barrier to the the creation of such a a coordinate line, The line is defined by the trajectory of the emitted photons, where the zero-point is the original IP.

Further, there are inscribed tick marks at every 1000 tick unit lengths (1000 tick points) along the legs of the coordinate line.

There are two conditions of velocity of the frame moving right.

For v = 0?


L arrives at Lc before R arrives at Rc.
The photons arrive at Lc and Rc simultaneously.
2. V > 0

L arrives at Lc before R arrives at Rc.
The photons arrive at Lc and Rc simultaneously.
The clocks printout the time of arrival when the photon arrives at the clock.
The answer to 1. Both photons arrive at the clocks simultaneously.

The answer to #2 is L arrives at Lc before R arirves at Rc.

The frame moving right at velocity v moves a distance vt when the photons move a distance ct. This means L is deteced after moving a distance ct. R, however is located a distance 2vt short of Rc (while moving right). In order to reach Rc R must cross 2vt plus a small added distnce vt' which is the frame distance moved when the photon covers the 2vt distance. As stated this time the frame moves vt' and the photon moves ct', or ct' = 2vt + vt', and doing the algebra,

t' = t(2v)/(c - v)
If v = 0 t' = 0.
If v > 0 t' > 0.

t' is the difference in measured time difference re stationary and moving frame for the the photon to complete one round trip back to the physical midpoint of the frame simultaneously.

t' is a measure of absolute velocity.

The moving observer can consider any thing he desires. The observer sees nothing but the emission time and the return time of the photons.

This is his complete point of view.

The moving clocks are synchronized wrt the moving frame. The moving observers need to compare only the printouts of the arrival times of the photons at Lc and Rc. The time dfference of photon arrival at Lc then Rc can be explained by motion of the frame only. Information cannot exceed the speed of light. The observer's point of view cannot occur instantaneoulsy. The observer's point of view is limited to the printouts of the photon arrival times.

SRT is dead; there is no loss of simultaneity.

[Intergenuity]

Giest, I personally agree that there is no loss of simultaneousness...I can see from your dialogue that this can only be the correct view.

I have long held to the notion that the issue of simultaneousness is the key to this whole fiasco.

BUt it is not enough for you and me to see this as true it is necessary for SRT'ists to confront teh issue and see for them selves the problematic issue of non-simultaneousness.

May be you can describe another Thought experiment that clearly shows the same thing you have already shown but from another angle.

This diagram for example also shows the point:

http://www.paygency.com/Diagrams/c31.jpg

Object A as shown has V= 0.8c and crosses the beam at exactly the same rest frame distance as described. Both receiving objects recieve the light at the same time, thus simultaneous. Even though the relative velocity is 0.8c

So how is this possible if we believe that simultaneousness is non-existent?

For me I need to find at least three ways of showing the same thing all from different POVs. [in simple form]

BTW SRT isn't dead until the science community changes it's belief....and that is going to require some pretty amazing evidence beyond just thought experiment IMHO

[Intergenuity]

another little diagram to ponder on for a while:
http://www.paygency.com/Diagrams/RV22.jpg