Bingo the Einsteiniano is not going back to absolute simultaneity, never, why on earth should Bingo go there, what would happen to Bingo if absolute simultaneity starts looming over the horizon, there is no absolute simultaneity, never has been, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

http://edge.org/conversation/a-philosophy-of-physics
Carlo Rovelli: "If we have learned that the earth is not flat, there will be no theory in the future in which the earth is 'flat.' If we have learned that the earth is not at the center of the universe, that's forever. We're not going to go back on this. If you have learned that simultaneity is relative, with Einstein, we're not going back to absolute simultaneity, like many people think."

Less faithful Bingos see no reason why they should refrain from going back to absolute simultaneity (from time to time) and extracting career and money from it:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Sim.../dp/0415701740
Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy): "Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity is an anthology of original essays by an international team of leading philosophers and physicists who have come together to reassess the contemporary paradigm of the relativistic concept of time. A great deal has changed since 1905 when Einstein proposed his Special Theory of Relativity, and this book offers a fresh reassessment of Special Relativitys relativistic concept of time in terms of epistemology, metaphysics, and physics. (...) Unfortunately for Einstein's Special Theory, however, its epistemological and ontological assumptions are now seen to be questionable, unjustified, false, perhaps even illogical."

http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=21470
William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith (eds.), Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity, Routledge, 2008, Reviewed by Thomas Ryckman, Stanford University: "The subject of this book is clearly stated by its title. The editors (...) unite here in bringing together "the first collection of essays devoted . . . to arguing that simultaneity is absolute". (...) Differences emerge on the grounds for "absolute simultaneity" and on what it implies."

http://philosophy.ucsd.edu/faculty/c...st%20tense.doc
Craig Callender: "In my opinion, by far the best way for the tenser to respond to Putnam et al is to adopt the Lorentz 1915 interpretation of time dilation and Fitzgerald contraction. Lorentz attributed these effects (and hence the famous null results regarding an aether) to the Lorentz invariance of the dynamical laws governing matter and radiation, not to spacetime structure. On this view, Lorentz invariance is not a spacetime symmetry but a dynamical symmetry, and the special relativistic effects of dilation and contraction are not purely kinematical. The background spacetime is Newtonian or neo-Newtonian, not Minkowskian. Both Newtonian and neo-Newtonian spacetime include a global absolute simultaneity among their invariant structures (with Newtonian spacetime singling out one of neo-Newtonian spacetimes many preferred inertial frames as the rest frame). On this picture, there is no relativity of simultaneity and spacetime is uniquely decomposable into space and time."

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_...an_barbour.pdf
Aspects of Time, Julian Barbour, Warwick, August 24th 2011: "Was Spacetime Glorious Historical Accident? (...) ABSOLUTE SIMULTANEITY RESTORED!"

http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/148
"Many physicists argue that time is an illusion. Lee Smolin begs to differ. (...) Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says. He now believes that time is more than just a useful approximation, that it is as real as our guts tell us it is - more real, in fact, than space itself. The notion of a "real and global time" is the starting hypothesis for Smolin's new work, which he will undertake this year with two graduate students supported by a $47,500 grant from FQXi."

Pentcho Valev