Michael
And just to counteract the notion that I am all philosophical, here is the explanation of the error I refer to above:
The misconception of time and timing (the AB example)
10 The misconception of time and timing revolved around the incorrect application of local time, and the flawed concept of simultaneity, by Poincaré in particular. Einstein: On the electrodynamics of moving bodies (1905), Section 1 Part 1, Definition of Simultaneity, provides an explanation of the argument, so is used as the reference.
11 A and B are each attributed a time (local) of existence, ie t(a) and t(b). Either there is a relationship between these timings, or not. If there is a relationship, then there is no timing issue to resolve. If there is no relationship, then nothing further can be discerned from this information, since they are variables defined on the basis of different references with no known relationship.
12 So there must have been a presumption that the timing devices were synchronised (ie working properly). Which reveals that the actual reference against which all timings are compared is the concept of a constant rate of change (while spatial attributes are referenced to the concept of a spatial grid). Timing devices just 'tell' the time, and are therefore only valid if they are all related to this one reference. This must be so, otherwise there can be no basis upon which to compare timings and progress an analysis. That is, if timing devices are set arbitrarily, and/or are not operating properly, then the time, as 'told', is meaningless. Measuring devices just enable quantification, but that is only valid when it correlates with the single reference for the attribute, which is synchronisation of timing devices, and consistent calibration of spatial devices.
13 The whole raison d'être of any measuring system is comparison and the identification of difference, which necessitates a reference. Obviously a reference is chosen usually on the basis of its characteristics being commensurate with the role, ie it being the best practical manifestation of the conceptual constant, which in timing is constancy, and rapid, frequency of change. The key point is that once something is used as the reference, then it must be used consistently, so that other results are comparable (ie differences are identified with respect to the same reference). Which means either using the same reference, or ensuring variance is discounted.
14 By definition then, the timing relationship which supposedly needed to be inferred, ie local times to a common time, was known already. That is, the timing devices were working properly. And presumption of the distance AB meant that A and B must have been existent at the same time, ie t(a) equalled t(b). Alternatively, had the times been different, then A could not have been compared to B, and distance established, because one was non existent.
15 The comparison of AB to BA, which is unnecessary anyway, is effected in terms of time incurred with consecutive, not concurrent, timings. This is incorrect. Not only is there no duration in a spatial circumstance, even if each duration incurred had been properly understood as just an alternative fixed quantity to a spatial quantity, AB cannot be compared to BA on the basis of subsequent timings. Because any subsequent timing cannot be presumed to relate to AB, as either A and/or B could have ceased to exist. Such measurements can only represent whatever was deemed to constitute A and B, and therefore AB, at the time it was effected. Whether physically existent states, and/or the distance between them, remain the same over time is irrelevant to the quantification of a unique difference which occurred at a given time.
16 The use of light speed (and the presumption that it was constant) as a method for quantifying distance was not the issue. Neither was the quantification of distance in terms of a conceptual duration incurred, had it been understood. Any method, involving any direction, would suffice, if the calculation had been carried out properly. The error was assuming that physical existence, and hence any artefact dependent thereon, exists over time, rather than only in one existent state at a time.
Light
17 Before progressing with the argument, it is necessary to highlight certain fundamental characteristics of light. Light is a physical effect in photons which enables sight. That effect results from an atomic interaction, therefore, unlike in a collision, the start speed of any given light is always the same, and as with any existent phenomenon, it will continue to move at that speed unless impeded. Also, there is a relentless sequence of such interactions, and light travels in all directions. So when reference is made to light, it is usually in respect of many different physically existent phenomena, ie different physically existent lights may be the same from the perspective of recipient observers. Again, there is a danger of simplification resulting in reification and misconceptions. Light as a physically existent state in its own right, and light as in what sensory systems decode upon reception, need to be differentiated. The other consequences of this process are that observers receive, in the context of sight, a photon based representation of any given physically existent state (ie a light reality of reality), and there is always a delay between time of existence, and the time of observation of that existence.
The misconception of the role of observation
18 It is argued that the AB example is explainable in terms of observation. So time of existence, and time of observation, were asserted to be the same if whatever existed was in the "immediate proximity". This is correct as an approximation, though would need definition. The issue then was establishing a relationship between two such times when they were not in the "immediate proximity".
19 But, introducing the differential between timing of existence, and timing of observation of existence, is irrelevant. As before, the timing devices must be synchronised, otherwise these timings are meaningless, and if the distance AB is presumed, then A and B must have existed at the same time. Alternatively, if A and B did not exist at the same time, then there could not be a distance AB to observe.
20 Therefore, in the context of observation, assuming a simplification of the real conditions, any difference in these times can only be a function of the time delay for light to travel from B to A, or vice versa, and not a reflection of some other variance. That is, again there is no issue to be resolved. The difference in timing is because they were observations of reality, not reality. The simplification of equating timings of existence and observation in the "immediate proximity" is a symptom of the underlying conflation of reality and light reality. Physically, there is always a distance and therefore a delay whilst light travels; and there must always be light in order to observe. Indeed, what was the spatial relationship between the observer and the light as at the time of existence, could alter with respect to the light whilst the light is travelling. Neither is physical existence affected by observation, because it occurred before that, and involved no physical interaction with reality, but with a physically existent representation (from the perspective of the sensory system) of that reality (ie light reality). Constant light speed and no relative motion were presumed, which whilst further complicating calculations, would not affect the logic.
21 By substituting c for v, ie a specific velocity of a particular entity, c is asserted to be: 2AB/(t'(a) - t(a)). Which is both incorrect as a generic definition, but more importantly, wrong because that time involves duration incurred from subsequent timings, apart from being deemed an elapsed time in both cases anyway, which it is not. Assuming the quantity is doubled, it should be either twice A to B or B to A, or the sum of A to B and B to A incurred at the same time. So it should be, when specifically considering light speed: c = 2AB/2(t(a) - t(b)). Or simply, as considering either direction is superfluous, c = AB/(t(a) - t(b)). Which, although correct, is a statement of the obvious. That is, the velocity of light is a ratio of total distance travelled to the time taken to do so, ie the definition of velocity. Light is just another entity, which can be presumed to travel at a constant speed. But it is not a conceptual constant like rate of change, or spatial grid, its importance is in enabling sight.
