swansont

What's the point? Relativity is how nature behaves. Why is it 10:00? The missiles did not send the signal at 10:00. At 10:00, the clocks were co-located. There is no other time on the trip the clock would read 10:00. At B, the clock said 11:00 Why would it stop ticking? Do you have a model which predicts this, or is this just more flawed logic?

No, they generally don’t. Do you have a specific example in mind? Evidence? Evidence? and again: evidence? It has? Long on BS, short on facts. ! Moderator Note You need to do a lot better to be in compliance with our rules

It’s as Janus says. There are no effects other that signal delay, which is rather mundane, since it’s part of everyday life.

I agree. Much about the accomplishment is impressive, but they choose to hype something that's rather mundane.

! Moderator Note Discussion of whether relativity is just light propagation delay has been split https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/123006-time-dilation-is-propagation-delay-split-from-what-is-time-again/

We are assuming there is no time dilation in this scenario. There is no relativistic anything. The premise is that light travels at a finite speed, but not that it is invariant.

No, the clock will always display the same time as the other clock, and the difference in the signal will simply be due to the delay time of the signal. It does not look like it is ticking slower as long as you realize that there is a delay in the signal. But if you don't, and do the analysis improperly, you will the wrong answer. It only reads 9:00 because you are sending the signal at 9:00 to have it arrive at 10:00. If you waited 24 hours to send the signal, you would send it when the clock reads 10:00. A will get that signal at 11:00 Your scenario is flawed. "IMHO the traveling clock (B) was apparently ticking slower than clock A. As observed by A, in 24h the moving clock B apparently ticked only 23 hours. If B was never apparently changing rate, it would be impossible to change from 10.00 to 9.00." Clock be reads 9:00 because you waited 23 hours, not 24. And there should be nothing mystifying about a clock reading 9:00 23 hours after reading 10:00 If you send a signal at an intermediate point, it will read whatever time it was, offset by the signal travel time.

It didn’t “change”. At 10:00, it reads 10:00 to an observer with it. Observer A gets a signal from B saying 9:00, with the knowledge that there is a 1 hour delay. A knows that it was 9:00 one hour ago, i.e. that it is now 10:00. IOW, the clocks agree. It is 10:00 everywhere in that frame. There was never a change in the rate of clock B. If there had been, it would have accumulated more or less phase (time), and the clocks would not agree. (this is what happens in relativity, and is the reason for time dilation, but in our example we are assuming this is not happening) This is exactly the same as the example that Janus gave about the chiming of the bell at noon. If it takes 10 seconds for the sound to get to you, you know it was noon 10 seconds before you hear it. I have seen a map of London where this is done for Big Ben, showing the delay so people could properly set their clocks. No. You are ignoring the delay in the signal travel time. Let’s say that the clock really was slowed by an hour in that trip - the clock ran 23/24 as fast. It would lose an hour. At 9:00, it reads 8:00. It sends a signal to A saying it’s 8:00 and it gets there an hour later. A gets the signal at 10:00, and it says “it’s 8:00” That’s not what you say is happening, though.

But isn’t it less dangerous inherently in smaller cities, where there is less traffic?

It’s a sensationalist headline. A petawatt pulse for 10 picoseconds is just 10 kJ. “The laser was designed to meet the following specifications: an output of 10 kJ in a 1–10 ps pulse width” https://www.ile.osaka-u.ac.jp/eng/facilities/lfex/index.html

An example might be an inertial frame vs. a rotating frame. We know that an inertial frame is "preferred" (though there is no particular one that is) and you can tell whether or not you are in that frame because F=ma works in an inertial frame, but you need to add a fictitious centrifugal force to that equation in a rotating frame. IOW, F=ma no longer works If you lose the invariance of c — the speed of light only has that value in one particular frame — special relativity no longer works. These problems ripple through physics. In the case of a non-invariant c, Maxwells equations fail, too. One can't assume one impossible thing but assume everything else works just fine. Physics got a whole lot simpler when we realized we weren't at the center, though. We didn't need epicycles that had no physical basis. You could make the math work (it's Fourier analysis), but the physics was different. And that's the change in our understanding. (F=ma and gravity) vs something that was not

Once you've decided to break the laws of physics, you can't rely on physics to tell you what happens. All bets are off. Like I said in my last post, you have to explain how it's a preferred frame. Then you can possibly figure out which parts of physics you have broken.

! Moderator Note It's great that you want to ask question, but what's not so great is that you continue to hijack threads to ask them. If you have a direction not directed to the OP, or about the topic, you need to start a new thread. You need to identify what would allow you to identify the preferred frame, and that will identify the part of physics you've broken that would give you a preferred frame. The thing is, you can't really describe that with accepted physics, since accepted physics doesn't have a preferred frame. Also, what does " any invariance in c" mean? It's either invariant or it isn't. "Some invariance" is like being a little pregnant.

No, as observed by both observers, the clock rate would not change. If you think otherwise, you need to show this, not just assert it. That doesn't give a change in the clock rate. That gives an (apparent) change in the clock phase (time), but this can be adjusted for, as we do with actual clocks in use. You subtract out t = d/c (if the clocks are at rest with respect to each other) You are confusing the clock's time with the signal that is being received. That's only a problem if we were trying to reconstruct the time from the signal frequency. You could just broadcast a "at the tone the time will be..." signal and then reconstruct the time from the signal delay. Then there is no frequency shift of the signal to worry about.

That'll be the day. Where I live we don't have consistent rules on the right of way in a traffic circle (roundabout) on either side of one of the bridges.

If you quantified your idea you could use an actual algorithm and do an analysis.

It changes rate because c is invariant and time is relative. That's relativity. In your scenario there is no reason for the clock to change rate. Under a scenario where c is not invariant (i.e. SR does not hold): If you move away at some v and go to a place 1 light-second away and come to rest, and the clock signals differ by 1 light second, that's because it takes 1 second for the light to travel the distance (d = ct). The clocks actually read the same, which means there was no change in rate. If you think otherwise, you need to do an actual analysis to show it. (note that there would be other implications of c not being invariant, because breaking the laws of physics has implications everywhere, but these are being ignored as they are not relevant) c being an invariant is a constraint put on us by nature. The "need" is that the model be consistent with experiment. And "logical deduction" (especially when you skip the steps showing this deduction) is less powerful than actual mathematical analysis. That would seem to simply be propagation speed changes and/or doppler shift. The signal would change, but the clock's rate would not.

Is this not already the case in many cities? I know it is common in Washington DC, Manhattan (NYC), and downtown Vancouver BC Canada. I imagine a lot of it is driven by not wanting to have turn lanes taking up space, and if traffic is heavy enough, there are places where left turns are simply not permitted for two-way traffic.

Yes, actually, it does. No, the fact that the field is changing inherently results in a magnetic field. Not because of a change in current. There need not be any loop, or current. In the 4th equation in the link (Ampere’s circuital law), when you set the current to zero, you still have the curl of B being proportional to the time rate of change of E The changing field matters because it’s there, and changing. It does affect the field magnitude.

No, absent relativity, the clocks would/could tick at the same rate. The delay is simply the light travel time between the clocks. The rate slowing comes from c being invariant, not just being finite. That’s the basis of relativity.

It could be either. It depends on where the two observers are and what their motion is, relative to the source.

! Moderator Note More science and less word salad, please

A changing electric field creates a magnetic field. No electron involved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations#Formulation_in_SI_units_convention

The question of what happens when waves combine us a general one; there are multiple kinds of waves. The example in the video is more specific, as it has to do with the waves of the Schrödinger equation, which describe the probability of finding the electron at a particular place (and other things)

A necessary but insufficient requirement. Your power station will go broke. And I can’t believe this has to be explained to you.