**The Conjecture of Simultaneity in Time and Spacetime**
Relativity of simultaneity **is perceived to be distinct in different reference frames. ***We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events. [Albert Einstein, "***On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies**", I. Kinematical Part, §1, June 30, 1905].
Clocks do not tell time. They reflect movement of their internal composition, whether they may be springs, electricity or crystals/atoms as in atomic clocks. Clocks are devices made by human beings that reflect a certain *movement* in relation to an abstracted system of gradation for "telling time", "duration of selected matter-energy events".
Time is not measured as one physically measures spatial coordinates, mass, volume, etc.
Time is an abstracted aspect of spacetime/motion. In fact, we have yet to understand exactly what time is in terms of spacetime/motion, even though it forms an essential part of our definition of matter-energy = space**time**/motion.
The fact that we do not know exactly what time is may be observed in the assignment of one dimension to time as some kind of constant for the three dimensions of space.
Einstein offered his researched definition of "time".
*Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we have settled what is to be understood by synchronous stationary clocks located at different places, and have evidently obtained a definition of "simultaneous" or "synchronous", and of "time". The "time" of an event is that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary clock located at the place of the event, this clock being synchronous, and indeed synchronous for all time determinations, with a specific stationary clock." [Albert Einstein, "***On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies**", I. Kinematical Part, §1, June 30, 1905].
At best, relativists have proposed the idea of assigning a four dimensional concept to **spacetime** for matter-energy events ---when, in fact, no matter-energy event exists with only four dimensionally abstracted coordinates. The 4-dimensional model of spacetime is the *minimal number of lines* needed to represent the abstracted word-concept spacetime. No where in spacetime/motion does a matter-energy event exist with a minimum of four-dimensional coordinate lines, not even the four lines employed to illustrate the 4-dimensional continuum on the pages of physics textbooks.
There is no such phenomenon as a 4-dimensional spacetime as proposed in the theory of special relativity. In fact, by identifying a 4-dimensional spacetime, relativists are still clinging to the supposedly separate word-concepts of space *and *time. They simply write them together instead of separately. But, theoretically and practically in their reasoning they maintain the four dimensions as separate: three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. Relativists, as all physicists, must first count the number of dimensions to matter-energy events in spacetime/motion before choosing a random figure such as the number 4 or 5.
This leads me to the idea that a theory about reality cannot be limited to its minimal expression of three spatial coordinates. A theory that would apprehend spacetime/motion must explain it in all aspects/levels, moments/processes, and relations/systems [all spacetime/motion coordinates and dimensions]. Otherwise, it is simply a summary view that does not reflect completely how the conditions of existence themselves exist.
The Cesium-133 atom has *9,192,631,770 cycles per second.*
**9192631770 / 299,792,458 = 30.66331899**
Einstein specifically mentions in his paper of 1905 that simultaneity exists as in synchronization. If it were not simultaneous with all matter-energy, now, then spacetime/motion would be unable to relate. Simultaneity precisely reflects the relational nature of spacetime/motion at every now-moment of existence. Any phenomenon that might be non-simultaneous would be unrelated to spacetime/motion. Relativists are speaking about simultaneity in the *reading* of clocks, not in the nature of matter-energy in spacetime/motion.
The so-called light photon entails all of these motions. They all occur simultaneously. In fact, everything on earth has these motions except the motion proper to the light photon, which stands alone as the limit to how fast matter-energy can travel according to the relativists. I am in motion right now like this, every second of existence on earth witnesses these motions. And they all occur *simultaneously* every second.
**Squaring the Speed of Light in A Vacuum: Violation of A Self-Defined Limit**
For a detailed treatment of the absurdities in physics regarding the assignment of powers and multiples to the speed of light in vacuum, consider my brief study, *The Physics Challenge*, which may be obtained through* www.harvard.com*.
One of the main absurdities is to square the numerical value of the speed of light in a vacuum as an analogy relating to the Pythagorean Theorem. In my view, one has nothing to do with the other. Consider,* Extension of the Pythagorean Theorem to the Cube and an Emendation to Fermat's Last Theorem, (w*^{3} + x^{3} + y^{3} = z^{3}), Earth/matriX Editions, New Orleans, *1996, 5 pages.*
Other absurdities appear when the speed of light appears as multiples/powers relating to selected Planck constants. When the Planck constants' numerical values for energy and mass are substituted in Einstein's famous formula, E = m*c*-square, then the results become evident as powers of *c*.
E = m(*c*-square) 1.9561 x 2.71644 times *c*-square
Due to the addition of powers as a mathematical procedure, with the Planck constants' values, Einstein's formula is then recognizable as the following equivalency:
The basic implication of the formula for mass-energy equivalence is:
**E**^{3} = m^{1}c^{2}
Energy must be to the cube, since *c* is squared and m is understood to be the first power case. For, powers are added. When the Planck values/constants for Planck mass [2.17644] and Planck energy [1.9561] are plugged into the mass-energy equivalence formula, then those numerical values represent fractal powers of *c* as shown here:
** c**^{9} = c^{7}c^{2}
Planck energy [1.9561] represents a fractal numerical value for the ninth power of *c*, and Planck mass [2.17644] represents a fractal numerical value for the seventh power of *c*. In my view, absurdities in math such as these have no meaning in terms of spacetime/motion matter-energy events.
If it is unacceptable both theoretically and practically to square the speed of light in a vacuum, given its self-defined limit, then imagine the absurdity of carrying the speed of light as multiples of other fundamental physical constants. If it is impossible to square the speed of light and obtain a material value, imagine then how much more erroneous it is to take *c* to the ninth power ---the relativist thesis that *c* represents a physical limit to the velocity of matter-energy.
**Phase Velocity**
*"The phase velocity of a wave is the rate at which the phase of the wave propagates in space. This is the speed at which the phase of any one frequency component of the wave travels. … ***The phase velocity of electromagnetic radiation may, under certain circumstances,** (for example anomalous dispersion) **exceed the speed of light in a vacuum, but this does not indicate any superluminal information or energy transfer.**"
*-[Kouichi Hirabayashi, 2001, http://www.mogami.com/e/puzzle/pzl-18.html; emphasis mine.]*
*"Thus, when v = c, W becomes infinite. ***Velocities greater than that of light have ---as in our previous results--- no possibility of existence**". [Einstein, 1905, page 12.]
*"The ***formula v = c/n** calculates the **phase velocity** of a wave; this is the velocity at which the phase of any one frequency component of the wave will propagate."
*[Dispersion(optics), www.wikipedia.com; emphasis mine.]*
There appears to be two contradictory ideas in today's physics writing. Some relativists state that the *phase velocity* is capable of exceeding the speed of light *in vacuo*, while other relativists state that it is the *group velocity* that is capable of such a feat. It is unnecessary, in my view, to dispel this contradiction.
Physicists talk about *time of fligh*t and the *path length *in terms of how long it takes an electromagentic wave to travel a *distance* through a medium [or, vacuum]. This reference to path length does not refer to the actual flat/spiral path traveled by the photon/energy, but rather the straight-line distance from beginning to the end of the distance measured. *"The time of flight is used to measure velocity, from which the mass-to-charge ratio can be determined." ["Time of flight", www.wikipedia.com; paraphrase mine]* This concerns the time that transpires from the moment a particle issues from a source to the instant in which it is detected on a measuring device. It has nothing to do in fact with the actual path followed by the particle/wave between that distance. It only concerns the abstracted distance demarcated for measurement.
In today's science writing, it appears to be a well-accepted fact that matter-energy events are capable of exceeding and do exceed in fact the defined speed of light *in vacuo*. The caveat forwarded by relativists is that such examples of superluminal velocities of matter-energy do not qualify in their modified definition as worthy spacetime/motion events. Hence, enter the ostrich-head-in-the-sand theorem.
*"Superluminal communication is the hypothetical process by which one might send information at fater-than-light (FTL) speeds. So far, superluminal communication has not been achieved and scientific concensus is that faster-than-light communication is not possible." [Superluminal communication, www.wikipedia.com] *Therefore, any example of superluminal speed of matter-energy that exists is not really superluminal because it is incapable of carrying a communication signal or, something to that effect. The goal posts are effectively moved once again.
Regarding superluminal discussions in relativist physics one comes across questionable word-concepts such as, "wave-like", "space-like", "time-like", etc. There are too many examples to merit a particular citation.
In general, I have the impression that today's science writing about special relativity is one big imaginative "thought experiment", i.e., creative meandering about what possibly could exist were such-and-such to happen. Relativists main concern, it would appear, in treating the apparently confirmed examples of superluminal speeds is that these do not negatively affect the theory of special relativity. Whenever an example of superluminal speed of matter-energy is recognized, the relativists are quick to add "apparent FTL (faster-than-light) is not excluded by general relativity"; "…this is not quite the same as traveling faster than light, since…"; or, "…so they do not violate special relativity", etc. Once again, there are too many examples to cite here.
Intriguingly enough the recognized examples of faster-than-light travel by matter-energy are used to "prove" the thesis within special relativity that the speed of light is the maximum attainable velocity by matter-energy. *"Apparent superluminal motion is observed in many radio galaxies, blazars, quasars and recently also in microquasars. … ***The phenomenon does not contradict the theory of special relativity.**" [Apparent FTL propagation of static fields; www.wikipedia.com] This is but one of the theoretical tricks in today's science writing; just say there is no effect.
Their reasoning is that since FTL travel reportedly cannot carry a signal, it is really not faster-than-light. *"No information or matter can be FTL-transmitted or propagated from source to receiver/observer by an electromagnetic field. …***Some processes propagate faster than c, but cannot carry information…**". [Apparent FTL propagation of static fields; www.wikipedia.com]
In my view, it is a concern to witness the theses that faster-than-light travel is impossible, but since it does exist, it has no meaning in reality, and thus the speed of light in a vacuum is the maximum velocity of matter-energy. The deficiency in spacetime/motion reasoning in such a statement lies beyond correction. The theses themselves must be abandoned.
The very fact that the relativists have been able to measure and observe *in their own mind* the FTL examples of velocity of matter-energy surely means that some kind of communication or signal occurred and was observed. It is far too tedious to attempt any unwinding of such examples of circular reasoning in today's science writing by relativists.
©2014 Copyrighted. Charles William Johnson. All rights reserved. |