Just stumbled on this thread while I was looking for something else, but I had to comment because I don't see much communication happening here.
Andromeda, I'm sure you notice that everyone are refusing to communicate under your specific conceptualization of the meaning of "simultaneity". (e.g. see DaleSpam's previous post).
Might as well; it is always possible to conceptualize these things under all kinds of semantics, whatever one can establish as "logically valid" is good to go, regardless of philosophical connotations.
But there is one very critical detail here that most people tend to stumble on. Almost everyone attempt to conceptualize - i.e. interpret the meaning of relativity - under some idea regarding what reality is "really" like, overlooking the fact that all the definitions associated with relativity (or any theory for that matter) are a human
representation of reality.
I think you are doing yourself a big favor when seriously thinking about the question you are thinking about. Dale's comment "Simultaneity is physically unimportant" is basically valid comment if one is not interested of such questions, but I doubt it clears out any questions in your mind. I do not get the sense that Dale has quite figured out himself why exactly it is physically unimportant, apart from the fact that it is unimportant from an observational point of view, and wishes not to get too entangled into unknowable ontological speculations more than necessary.
But let me take a step back and explain some important epistemological aspects ("what can be known") behind this issue;
andromeda said:
Is relative simultaneity real? Has it been experimentally proven?
No, there is no reason to believe it is "real" in the usual meaning of the word "real". That is to say, if you conceptualize simultaneity plane as representing a "real momentary state of actual reality", then no, relative simultaneity cannot be said to be "now" in "real" sense, it is more accurately just a valid way to represent reality.
Obviously so, as if it was "real now", then we would also be saying that the state of Andromeda (or anything at all) is affected by our choice of reference frame. It's safe to say that reality doesn't "really change" when someone chooses to represent reality in different reference frame. Note that this idea is exactly what led some physicists to argue that reality is a static spacetime block; another rather childish ontological speculation on unknowable things. Note the flip-side of this same coin is, relative simultaneity can be said to be a representational feature of our world view. That much we know, while ontological nature behind it is unknowable.
So, assuming you are not interested of arbitrary ontological speculation, what you want to understand is, what does relative simultaneity represent epistemologically? The must succint answer is, it represents a kind of ignorance, arising from a particular unobservable aspect of reality, which allows its
valid use (valid as in "it works"). This is in fact one of the most important things to understand regarding relativity, but often appears to be quite poorly understood (even among some physicists) leading to rather ridiculous philosophical perspectives about relativity.
A full analysis is far beyond a scope of a forum post, but I will give you a little hand-wavy argument. Walk through the following, and see if you can build up personally satisfactory understanding along every step.
Fact #1
C is not a measurable property of reality. It is often implied in scientific dialogue that C is well measured quantity, but what they are actually talking about is what C is under relativistic clock synchronization convention. This has caused a lot of people to loose perspective on the actual facts behind the issue;
1a: Measuring two-way speed of light is possible via the fact that you can measure it with single clock.
1b: Measuring one-way speed of light is fundamentally impossible, because you need two clocks, which you cannot synchronize without already knowing the speed of light. Note that you cannot take clock measurements to be unaffacted by motion of the clocks as long as you take clocks to be macroscopic devices held together by electromagnetic phenomena. Try to get around that and you should understand the fundamental nature of this problem.
This is actually a rather trivial issue to understand if you really think about it for a bit, and it was also well known by the physicists pre-relativity. Some reference material;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light
Fact #2
Fact #1 leads directly to Fact #2; if you can't measure one-way speed of light, you cannot possibly establish factual notion of any "real momentary state of reality". Although it may be valid to think such a state exists, it is simply not possible to measure what it is. This leads into a rather interesting fact that, we are quite free to arbitrarily choose different conventions for one-way speed of light, as long as they also yield the measured two-way speed of light. Different conventions would lead to different ideas of "real now". Note also that, as long as you take macroscopic objects to be collections of elements held together via electromagnetic forces, you can't assume them to be unaffected by different one-way speeds of C.
This was also well known pre-relativity. Note especially that Lorentz transformation did not arise from special relativity, it arose from a particular ontological speculation by Hendrik Lorentz; exactly where it got its name;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Lorentz#Electrodynamics_and_relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lorentz_transformations
The significance of which is that while such ontological speculation may be true, but it cannot possibly be proven due to fact #1.
Fact #3
If you read Einstein's original paper about SR in the above context (which is close to the context he wrote it in), you should be able to see that what he is really getting at is not that isotropic C is a fact of nature, but rather that we are completely free to define C as isotropic across all reference frames, as long as we perform a self-consistent transformation between those frames; that very transformation which Lorentz had already established.
English translation of that paper;
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
You will not find him talking about spacetime or none of that ontological speculative nonsense. He is talking about a convention that is available to us. That is also why the people who understand this issue often refer to this as "Einstein CONVENTION". All the spacetime speculation became later as an interpretation to the paper by Minkowski (google "Minkowski spacetime" if you wish). It is popular nowadays because the further developments were developed under that terminology. But Einstein's confidence to the validity of his argument is in fact directly related to his understanding that he is use definitions that he is free to use, due to very specific ingnorance forced on us by our fundamental inability to measure one-way speed of light.
Fact #4
Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism contain an inconsistency called "The moving magnet and conductor problem". If you look at that Einstein's paper on SR, you have seen him referring to this problem in the very opening.
More reference material;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_magnet_and_conductor_problem
The significance of this fact is that Maxwell's equations (i.e. the underlying definitions to his equations) already implicitly contain the requirement for Einstein's convention for relative simultaneity, via requiring C to be defined as isotropic. Meaning, if Maxwell's equations can be taken as valid representation of real phenomena, then so can special relativity. That is one of the major sources of Einstein's confidence to his definitions; exactly the reason he opens with this issue.
So, if you can follow the above issues and trace them to the definitions of relativity, you should be able to see clearly how relativity arises from a specific ignorance; it is rather a representation form that is valid, and available for us, but its ontological status remains as unknown as any other. If you can see this, you will also start to see how most people actually have a rather naive perspective towards relativity philosophically.
As one little side note, notice that special relativity has to do with principle of relativity in terms of defining physical laws. But from an ontological/cosmological perspective, the cosmic background radiation - if you presume it to be a residual effect from the big bang - it does in fact establish a cosmological reference frame (a frame where the background radiation does not doppler shift in any direction). Also note that all the macroscopic objects that we observe are almost stationary relative to each others in relativistic terms (a homogeneous distribution would appear from any reference frame as if most things are moving arbitrarily close to C). But this last paragraph is not to be confused with anything above related to definitions of special relativity, just thought you might find it interesting to think about.
-Anssi