It's curious that this simple proof -which don't require invariant speed, aka Maxwell equations- was discovered after Einstein's proposal which depends on invariant speed assumption. I wonder how the history of physics would have been if someone proposed this before Einstein. The maths needed for this derivation are quite simple, so I guess Newton or some mathematician before Einstein could have proposed special relativity.
> [...] On looking through the literature, we notice that several previous studies undertook the analysis of the optical force in the time domain, but at a certain point always shifted their focus to the time average force [67–69] or, alternatively, use numerical approaches to find the force in the time domain [44,70–75]. To the best of our knowledge, only a few publications conducted analytical studies of the optical force evolution. Very recent paper employs the signal theory to derive the imaginary part of the Maxwell stress tensor, which is responsible for the oscillating optical force and torque [76]. The optical force is studied under two-wave excitation acting on a half-space [40] and on cylinders [77], and a systematic analytical study of the time evolution of the optical force has not yet been reported.
If mass warps space and time nonlinearly per relevant confirmations of General Relativity, and there is observable retrocausality and also indefinite causal order, is forcing time to be the frame of reference, and to be the constant frame of reference necessary or helpful for the OT problem and otherwise?
