Simultaneity and Time

"Simultaneity" is a word used in Science and has two distinct meanings. As usual, the meanings get conflated and lead to argumentation.

A) Perceptive simultaneity (Einstein's)
B) Time Zoning (Modern Scientism)

When Einstein was referring to simultaneous events, he was referring to (A) wherein two observers might report whether events were simultaneous differently from each other due to the time that it takes for the light to travel from one point to another giving the impression that an event occurred later than it did.

In modern Scientism, the word "simultaneity" refers to a time zone labeling of space for time reference. When using this version of simultaneity what is being referred to is the terminology or semantics to be used when referencing what time something occurred. When it is 8:00 in New York, it is 5:00 in California. Of course this has nothing to do with the behavior of the physical universe, "physics". It is merely a labeling standard. The standard is that you are to project a light photon from a point of interest at any particular time of day and label every point the photon reaches as being that time (of day) when it reaches that point, which of course will be later.

The problem has arisen that the semantic issue of time zoning is being taught in universities as a principle in physics that explains things like special relativity. An oversight in language is being used to justify why a theory is to be accepted. The Lorenz equation is often called up as a authoritative reference to justify the semantics. But in reality, the Lorenz equation had nothing to do with time zone labeling as is often taught (and even represented on Wiki as a physics principle).

Time itself on the other hand, has nothing to do with labeling nor perception. Time is a measure of relative change. It doesn't matter what you choose to call anything. The only issue relevant to time itself is how much change occurred in one event compared to another. Einstein referred to this as the comparison of two clocks, "how fast one clock is running compared to another". Special and general relativity deal with this time issue of comparisons in rates of changes, not what labels are being used to refer to them.

So when someone mentions "simultaneity" it might be wise to ask which version they are referring to and see if it is actually relevant to the discussion. Often people say that reality is merely whatever it is called rather than what it actually is (a confusion of Aristotle dialectics).

The 6 Dimensions of Spacetime

Not that physics isn't already too complicated, but a few years ago while studying time, I realized something; Time has 3 dimensions.

It was once thought that time was merely a constant, one dimensional measurement. It was eventually discovered that the measurement of time alters with relative velocity, hence "time is relative". But it was strange to me that no one seemed to have realized that velocity is a vector, a one dimensional vector. When something travels very fast relative to something else, the time measured will be dependent upon that speed. But the object is only traveling in one dimension. And the time in that dimension will no doubt be measured as different than if it were not moving. But the object is not moving in the other 2 dimensions and thus the time relating to those dimensions cannot change.

In effect, if one were to consider the idea of moving so fast as to reverse time, one would have to realize that time would only be reversed for the one dimension in which the object was traveling. The other 2 dimensions are not affected. If 3 idealized 2-dimensional clocks were on board orthogonally situated, only one would have any reason to flow backwards or even slow down.

The distinction can perhaps be more easily seen if it is presumed that two ships were screaming across space at near light speed. To the outside observer, both ships would seemed to have slower clocks, they would both age less. But between the two ships, if they were traveling parallel, there would be no difference in the clocks or aging between the ships. But what if they were not traveling parallel? What if the two ships were approaching each other at near light speed while also vectoring away from the outside observer at near light speed?

To the outside observer, the two ships are not traveling at the same velocity even though they are traveling at the same speed (different vector). And to each ship, the outside observer is traveling in a different direction from what the other would report. A problem arises when trying to calculate the aging factor, the "time dilation". As far as each ship is concerned, both the outside observer and the other ship are traveling at the same speed and thus should have the same aging involved. But to the outside observer, both of the ships should have the same aging involved as each other.

Of course, they can't all be right. Unless the time-vectors involved are considered, the time dilation factor will lead to a conundrum/paradox.

The bottom line is that time must be considered as a 3-dimensional measurement. Each orthogonally vectored dimension has its own time dimension.

Thus Spacetime is actually a 6 dimensional entity (not 4). And for a ship to travel so fast as to stop time or reverse time, it would actually have to travel in all 3 directions simultaneously. I think they call that "Poof".

So when you see anything go "poof", perhaps it merely poofed back in time.