Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 23 Dec 2009 10:22 On Dec 23, 10:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 23, 9:06 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 23, 10:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 22, 2:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 22, 3:08 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 22 dic, 16:49, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 22, 2:39 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 22 dic, 16:00, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Dec 22, 11:44 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail..com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 22 dic, 12:57, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 22, 9:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Correct. What is disputable is where the light travels from to M and > > > > > > > > > > M'. Without knowing the state of the aether the light propagates > > > > > > > > > > through, simultaneity cannot be determined. > > > > > > > > > > Of course it can!!!!. Just ask the two guys what they saw.. One of them > > > > > > > > > (M) will tell you "I saw two simultaneous strikes", the other (M') > > > > > > > > > will assure you "I saw two non simultaneous strikes"....case closed. > > > > > > > > > A lightning strike occurs one light year away from the Observer on the > > > > > > > > embankment. A second before the light from the lightning strike > > > > > > > > reaches the Observer on the embankment, a lighting strike occurs one > > > > > > > > second away from the Observer on the embankment. The light from both > > > > > > > > lightning strikes reach the Observer simultaneously. Were the > > > > > > > > lightning strike simultaneous? > > > > > > > > For the observer location YES!!!!. He did observe TWO simultaneous > > > > > > > flashes at his location. There are an infinity number of ways in which > > > > > > > this simultaneous observation can be obtained. Do you have a problem > > > > > > > with this? > > > > > > > > Miguel Rios > > > > > > > The Observer cannot conclude anything about the simultaneity of the > > > > > > events without knowing how far away the lighting strikes occurred > > > > > > relative to the Observer and how the Observer is moving with respect > > > > > > to the aether. > > > > > > > When the Observer measures the one light year to the one lightning > > > > > > strike and measures the one light second to the other lightning strike > > > > > > does the Observer still conclude the lightning strikes were > > > > > > simultaneous? > > > > > > > No, because the Observer has more information. What the Observer needs > > > > > > to realize is the Observer still does not have enough information. The > > > > > > Observer needs to know how the Observer is moving with respect to the > > > > > > aether. > > > > > > You should careful read what Paul Draper beautifully explained. Here > > > > > is again his immaculate reasoning: > > > > > > a) Observer M sees TWO SIMULTANEOUS strikes. > > > > > b) Observer M' sees TWO NON SIMULTANEOUS strikes. > > > > > c) M' measures the distance from himself to the two scorch marks and > > > > > notes that those two distances are the same. > > > > > d) M does the same and gets the same result. > > > > > e) M' measures the speed of light in both directions and observes that > > > > > it is the same. > > > > > f) M does the same and gets the same result. > > > > > > Now here is an INDISPUTABLE train of thought: > > > > > > 1. If you know that the distance two signals travel is the same, and > > > > > 2. If you know that the speed of two signals is the same, and > > > > > 3. If the signals arrive at the observer at the same time, > > > > > 4. Then the original source of the signals occurred at the same time. > > > > > Incorrect. You need to know the state of the medium the light travels > > > > through. > > > > No, you don't. The conditions I listed are completely sufficient for > > > determining simultaneity. > > > Einstein remarked that this is what simultaneity MEANS. > > > Einstein, and you, are incorrect on what simultaneity means.' > > I'm sorry, MPC, but now you are just denying reality. > Simultaneity is determined by the conditions that I mentioned. This is > what simultaneity has meant for hundreds of years. > If you don't understand that meaning, it doesn't mean that it's wrong. > It only means that you don't understand it. > > > > > You are looking down into a pool of water. At the bottom of the pool, > > directly below you is A. Off in the distance you see A' moving towards > > A. M' is behind A'. When A and A' are at the same point in space, a > > flash goes off in the water directly between you and A. > > > Does the light travel from A' to M' or from A to M'. > > > The light travels from A to M'. > > > "In accordance with the principle of relativity we shall certainly > > have to take for granted that the propagation of light always takes > > place with the same velocity w with respect to the liquid, whether the > > latter is in motion with reference to other bodies or not." - Albert > > Einstein > > Don't you find it interesting that you're quoting Einstein, when you > just said he was wrong about what simultaneity means? > Not at all. I find Einstein to be mostly correct. "In accordance with the principle of relativity we shall certainly have to take for granted that the propagation of light always takes place with the same velocity w with respect to the liquid, whether the latter is in motion with reference to other bodies or not." - Albert Einstein You are looking down into a pool of water. At the bottom of the pool, directly below you is A. Off in the distance you see A' moving towards A. M' is behind A'. When A and A' are at the same point in space, a flash goes off in the water directly between you and A. Does the light travel from A' to M' at w or from A to M' at w. The light travels from A to M' at w. > > > > > > The water is at rest with respect to the TRAIN. Lighting > > > > strikes occur at A/A' and B/B'. Does the light travel from A and B to > > > > M or from A' and B' to M? The light travels with respect to the water > > > > which is at rest with respect to the train, so the light travels from > > > > A' and B' to M. > > > > > > Likewise: > > > > > > 1'. If you know that the distance two signals travel is the same, and > > > > > 2'. If you know that the speed of two signals is the same, and > > > > > 3'. If the signals arrive at the observer at not the same time, > > > > > 4'. Then the original source of the signals occurred at not the same > > > > > time. > > > > > > So here are the facts: > > > > > > a) M observes facts 1, 2, 3, and rightfully makes INDISPUTABLE > > > > > conclusion 4, that is indeed both strikes were simultaneous. > > > > > b) M' observes facts 1', 2', 3' and rightfully makes INDISPUTABLE > > > > > conclusion 4', that is indeed both strikes were not simultaneous. > > > > > > Miuel Rios > >
From: mpc755 on 23 Dec 2009 10:49 On Dec 23, 10:25 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 23, 10:22 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 23, 10:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 23, 9:06 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 23, 10:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 22, 2:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 22, 3:08 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 22 dic, 16:49, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Dec 22, 2:39 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 22 dic, 16:00, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 22, 11:44 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 22 dic, 12:57, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 22, 9:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Correct. What is disputable is where the light travels from to M and > > > > > > > > > > > > M'. Without knowing the state of the aether the light propagates > > > > > > > > > > > > through, simultaneity cannot be determined. > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course it can!!!!. Just ask the two guys what they saw. One of them > > > > > > > > > > > (M) will tell you "I saw two simultaneous strikes", the other (M') > > > > > > > > > > > will assure you "I saw two non simultaneous strikes".....case closed. > > > > > > > > > > > A lightning strike occurs one light year away from the Observer on the > > > > > > > > > > embankment. A second before the light from the lightning strike > > > > > > > > > > reaches the Observer on the embankment, a lighting strike occurs one > > > > > > > > > > second away from the Observer on the embankment. The light from both > > > > > > > > > > lightning strikes reach the Observer simultaneously. Were the > > > > > > > > > > lightning strike simultaneous? > > > > > > > > > > For the observer location YES!!!!. He did observe TWO simultaneous > > > > > > > > > flashes at his location. There are an infinity number of ways in which > > > > > > > > > this simultaneous observation can be obtained. Do you have a problem > > > > > > > > > with this? > > > > > > > > > > Miguel Rios > > > > > > > > > The Observer cannot conclude anything about the simultaneity of the > > > > > > > > events without knowing how far away the lighting strikes occurred > > > > > > > > relative to the Observer and how the Observer is moving with respect > > > > > > > > to the aether. > > > > > > > > > When the Observer measures the one light year to the one lightning > > > > > > > > strike and measures the one light second to the other lightning strike > > > > > > > > does the Observer still conclude the lightning strikes were > > > > > > > > simultaneous? > > > > > > > > > No, because the Observer has more information. What the Observer needs > > > > > > > > to realize is the Observer still does not have enough information. The > > > > > > > > Observer needs to know how the Observer is moving with respect to the > > > > > > > > aether. > > > > > > > > You should careful read what Paul Draper beautifully explained. Here > > > > > > > is again his immaculate reasoning: > > > > > > > > a) Observer M sees TWO SIMULTANEOUS strikes. > > > > > > > b) Observer M' sees TWO NON SIMULTANEOUS strikes. > > > > > > > c) M' measures the distance from himself to the two scorch marks and > > > > > > > notes that those two distances are the same. > > > > > > > d) M does the same and gets the same result. > > > > > > > e) M' measures the speed of light in both directions and observes that > > > > > > > it is the same. > > > > > > > f) M does the same and gets the same result. > > > > > > > > Now here is an INDISPUTABLE train of thought: > > > > > > > > 1. If you know that the distance two signals travel is the same, and > > > > > > > 2. If you know that the speed of two signals is the same, and > > > > > > > 3. If the signals arrive at the observer at the same time, > > > > > > > 4. Then the original source of the signals occurred at the same time. > > > > > > > Incorrect. You need to know the state of the medium the light travels > > > > > > through. > > > > > > No, you don't. The conditions I listed are completely sufficient for > > > > > determining simultaneity. > > > > > Einstein remarked that this is what simultaneity MEANS. > > > > > Einstein, and you, are incorrect on what simultaneity means.' > > > > I'm sorry, MPC, but now you are just denying reality. > > > Simultaneity is determined by the conditions that I mentioned. This is > > > what simultaneity has meant for hundreds of years. > > > If you don't understand that meaning, it doesn't mean that it's wrong.. > > > It only means that you don't understand it. > > > > > You are looking down into a pool of water. At the bottom of the pool, > > > > directly below you is A. Off in the distance you see A' moving towards > > > > A. M' is behind A'. When A and A' are at the same point in space, a > > > > flash goes off in the water directly between you and A. > > > > > Does the light travel from A' to M' or from A to M'. > > > > > The light travels from A to M'. > > > > > "In accordance with the principle of relativity we shall certainly > > > > have to take for granted that the propagation of light always takes > > > > place with the same velocity w with respect to the liquid, whether the > > > > latter is in motion with reference to other bodies or not." - Albert > > > > Einstein > > > > Don't you find it interesting that you're quoting Einstein, when you > > > just said he was wrong about what simultaneity means? > > > Not at all. I find Einstein to be mostly correct. > > > "In accordance with the principle of relativity we shall certainly > > have to take for granted that the propagation of light always takes > > place with the same velocity w with respect to the liquid, whether the > > latter is in motion with reference to other bodies or not." - Albert > > Einstein > > > You are looking down into a pool of water. At the bottom of the pool, > > directly below you is A. Off in the distance you see A' moving towards > > A. M' is behind A'. When A and A' are at the same point in space, a > > flash goes off in the water directly between you and A. > > > Does the light travel from A' to M' at w or from A to M' at w. > > > The light travels from A to M' at w. > > The light also travels from A to M at w. Just to get this in better sync with the direction the train is traveling relative to the embankment: "In accordance with the principle of relativity we shall certainly have to take for granted that the propagation of light always takes place with the same velocity w with respect to the liquid, whether the latter is in motion with reference to other bodies or not." - Albert Einstein You are looking down into a pool of water. At the bottom of the pool, directly below you is B. The water is at rest with respect to you and B. Off in the distance you see B' moving towards B. M' is behind B'. When B and B' are at the same point in space, a flash goes off in the water directly between you and B. The light travels from B to M' at w. The light travels from B to M at w.
From: mpc755 on 23 Dec 2009 11:11 On Dec 23, 10:49 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 23, 10:25 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 23, 10:22 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 23, 10:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 23, 9:06 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 23, 10:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 22, 2:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Dec 22, 3:08 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 22 dic, 16:49, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 22, 2:39 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 22 dic, 16:00, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 22, 11:44 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 22 dic, 12:57, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 22, 9:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Correct. What is disputable is where the light travels from to M and > > > > > > > > > > > > > M'. Without knowing the state of the aether the light propagates > > > > > > > > > > > > > through, simultaneity cannot be determined. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course it can!!!!. Just ask the two guys what they saw. One of them > > > > > > > > > > > > (M) will tell you "I saw two simultaneous strikes", the other (M') > > > > > > > > > > > > will assure you "I saw two non simultaneous strikes"....case closed. > > > > > > > > > > > > A lightning strike occurs one light year away from the Observer on the > > > > > > > > > > > embankment. A second before the light from the lightning strike > > > > > > > > > > > reaches the Observer on the embankment, a lighting strike occurs one > > > > > > > > > > > second away from the Observer on the embankment. The light from both > > > > > > > > > > > lightning strikes reach the Observer simultaneously. Were the > > > > > > > > > > > lightning strike simultaneous? > > > > > > > > > > > For the observer location YES!!!!. He did observe TWO simultaneous > > > > > > > > > > flashes at his location. There are an infinity number of ways in which > > > > > > > > > > this simultaneous observation can be obtained. Do you have a problem > > > > > > > > > > with this? > > > > > > > > > > > Miguel Rios > > > > > > > > > > The Observer cannot conclude anything about the simultaneity of the > > > > > > > > > events without knowing how far away the lighting strikes occurred > > > > > > > > > relative to the Observer and how the Observer is moving with respect > > > > > > > > > to the aether. > > > > > > > > > > When the Observer measures the one light year to the one lightning > > > > > > > > > strike and measures the one light second to the other lightning strike > > > > > > > > > does the Observer still conclude the lightning strikes were > > > > > > > > > simultaneous? > > > > > > > > > > No, because the Observer has more information. What the Observer needs > > > > > > > > > to realize is the Observer still does not have enough information. The > > > > > > > > > Observer needs to know how the Observer is moving with respect to the > > > > > > > > > aether. > > > > > > > > > You should careful read what Paul Draper beautifully explained. Here > > > > > > > > is again his immaculate reasoning: > > > > > > > > > a) Observer M sees TWO SIMULTANEOUS strikes. > > > > > > > > b) Observer M' sees TWO NON SIMULTANEOUS strikes. > > > > > > > > c) M' measures the distance from himself to the two scorch marks and > > > > > > > > notes that those two distances are the same. > > > > > > > > d) M does the same and gets the same result. > > > > > > > > e) M' measures the speed of light in both directions and observes that > > > > > > > > it is the same. > > > > > > > > f) M does the same and gets the same result. > > > > > > > > > Now here is an INDISPUTABLE train of thought: > > > > > > > > > 1. If you know that the distance two signals travel is the same, and > > > > > > > > 2. If you know that the speed of two signals is the same, and > > > > > > > > 3. If the signals arrive at the observer at the same time, > > > > > > > > 4. Then the original source of the signals occurred at the same time. > > > > > > > > Incorrect. You need to know the state of the medium the light travels > > > > > > > through. > > > > > > > No, you don't. The conditions I listed are completely sufficient for > > > > > > determining simultaneity. > > > > > > Einstein remarked that this is what simultaneity MEANS. > > > > > > Einstein, and you, are incorrect on what simultaneity means.' > > > > > I'm sorry, MPC, but now you are just denying reality. > > > > Simultaneity is determined by the conditions that I mentioned. This is > > > > what simultaneity has meant for hundreds of years. > > > > If you don't understand that meaning, it doesn't mean that it's wrong. > > > > It only means that you don't understand it. > > > > > > You are looking down into a pool of water. At the bottom of the pool, > > > > > directly below you is A. Off in the distance you see A' moving towards > > > > > A. M' is behind A'. When A and A' are at the same point in space, a > > > > > flash goes off in the water directly between you and A. > > > > > > Does the light travel from A' to M' or from A to M'. > > > > > > The light travels from A to M'. > > > > > > "In accordance with the principle of relativity we shall certainly > > > > > have to take for granted that the propagation of light always takes > > > > > place with the same velocity w with respect to the liquid, whether the > > > > > latter is in motion with reference to other bodies or not." - Albert > > > > > Einstein > > > > > Don't you find it interesting that you're quoting Einstein, when you > > > > just said he was wrong about what simultaneity means? > > > > Not at all. I find Einstein to be mostly correct. > > > > "In accordance with the principle of relativity we shall certainly > > > have to take for granted that the propagation of light always takes > > > place with the same velocity w with respect to the liquid, whether the > > > latter is in motion with reference to other bodies or not." - Albert > > > Einstein > > > > You are looking down into a pool of water. At the bottom of the pool, > > > directly below you is A. Off in the distance you see A' moving towards > > > A. M' is behind A'. When A and A' are at the same point in space, a > > > flash goes off in the water directly between you and A. > > > > Does the light travel from A' to M' at w or from A to M' at w. > > > > The light travels from A to M' at w. > > > The light also travels from A to M at w. > > Just to get this in better sync with the direction the train is > traveling relative to the embankment: > > "In accordance with the principle of relativity we shall certainly > have to take for granted that the propagation of light always takes > place with the same velocity w with respect to the liquid, whether the > latter is in motion with reference to other bodies or not." - Albert > Einstein > > You are looking down into a pool of water. At the bottom of the pool, > directly below you is B. The water is at rest with respect to you and > B. Off in the distance you see B' moving towards B. M' is behind B'. > When B and B' are at the same point in space, a flash goes off in the > water directly between you and B. > > The light travels from B to M' at w. > > The light travels from B to M at w. In accordance with the principle of relativity we shall certainly have to take for granted that the propagation of light always takes place with the same velocity c with respect to the aether, whether the latter is in motion with reference to other bodies or not.
From: mpc755 on 22 Dec 2009 17:07 On Dec 22, 5:03 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 4:16 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 22, mpc755 wrote: > > > glird wrote: > > ><< M' measures to A' (because that's where the lightning struck) and to B' (because that's where the lightning struck). >> > > mpc wrote: > > >< And the Observer at M' would be incorrect. The light from the lightning strike at A/A' and B/B' travels with respect to the water which is at rest with respect to the embankment. The light from the lightning strikes DO NOT travel from A' and B' to M', the light from the lightning strikes travels from A and B to M'. > > > Is this your response, or is this my response? > > > > Yours! > > > >< I just went back through the posts and see the above post is mine. If you think you understand the point I am trying to make, then you need to understand the above. The light travels with respect to the medium it propagates through. If the water, glass, luminiferous stuff, is at rest with respect to the embankment, the light propagates outward at the same speed in all directions from A and B. When the light, propagating through the medium which is at rest with respect to the embankment reaches ANY Observer, the light has traveled from A and B to the Observer, in nature. > > > > I am beginning to see your point. I think this is what you mean: > > The light from the lightning strike at A/A' and B/B' travels at w > > with respect to the water which is at rest with respect to the > > embankment. The light from the lightning strikes DO NOT travel from A' > > and B' to M' at w, however, it travels from AA' to M' at w-v, and from > > BB' to M' at w+v, where v is the velocity of M' wrt THE WATER. > > Not sure if AA' and BB' are misprints or if you meant A/A' and B/B'. > Either way, I think the following is clearer: > > The light from the lightning strikes DO NOT travel from A' and B' to > M' at w. However, the light travels from A' to M' at w-v and from B' > to M' at w+v, where v is the velocity of the train with respect to the > water. > > > Pleae correct me if my c-at and mowse game is wrong. Either way, > > here is what I think you meant in your next statement: > > The light travels at a given speed with respect to the medium it > > propagates through. If the water, glass, luminiferous stuff, is at > > rest with respect to the embankment, the light propagates outward at > > the same speed in all directions from A and B. When the light, > > propagating at w through the medium which is at rest with respect to > > the embankment, reaches ANY Observer, the light has traveled from A &/ > > or A' and B &/or B' to the Observer at a relative speed that depends > > on that of the Oberver, in nature though not in STR. > > > glird > > Since the speed of the Observer at M is zero relative to the water at > rest with respect to the embankment, the above seems unclear. > > We need some type of relative speed of any Observer with respect to > the water definition. > > The light travels from A to M at w-v and from B to M at w+v, where v > is the velocity of the embankment with respect to the water. > > The light travels from A' to M' at w-v' and from B' to M' at w+v', > where v' is the velocity of the train with respect to the water. This then becomes: The light travels from A to M at c-v and from B to M at c+v, where v is the velocity of the embankment with respect to the aether. The light travels from A' to M' at c-v' and from B' to M' at c+v' where v' is the velocity of the train with respect to the aether.
From: mpc755 on 22 Dec 2009 22:38
On Dec 22, 9:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 8:44 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 22, 5:58 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:da12e4ea-4256-4e5a-b9bb-cf0a0fe468a9(a)n38g2000yqf.googlegroups.com.... > > > > > On 22 dic, 12:40, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Dec 22, 8:29 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> Yes, I have dropped pebbles into water and what occurs is the wave > > > >> propagates outward in all directions at the same speed with respect to > > > >> the water. > > > > > NO, you have to repeat that experiment again. > > > > > The wave sure is not propagating with respect to the water!!! > > > > The statement was correct .. the speed of propagation of the water waves is > > > the same with respect to the water. > > > > > That is > > > > total nonsense. > > > > No > > > > > It is propagating on expanding circles, with respect to the hit point > > > > of the pebble. > > > > Not 'with respect to' .. centered around would be better. Even better > > > "concentric expanding circles with their centre at the hit point of the > > > pebble relative to the water". The speed of those waves is the same > > > relative to the water. > > > > If the water is flowing, then the waves are NOT concentric on the original > > > hit point. The circle centre moves with the water, leaving the pebble > > > behind. > > > Correct. And the same is true for water which is at rest with respect > > to the embankment. The waves created by a pebble dropped at A/A' > > propagate outward relative to the water which is at rest with respect > > to the embankment. This means the waves created by a pebble dropped at > > A/A' propagate outward relative to A which is at rest with respect to > > the water. > > > And the same is true for light waves. The light waves created by a > > flash at A/A' propagate outward relative to the water which is at rest > > with respect to the embankment. This means the light waves created by > > the flash at A/A' propagate outward relative to A which is at rest > > with respect to the water. > > You are staring down at water at rest. Directly below you, you see A > at the bottom of the water. Off in the distance you see A' approaching > A. Behind A' is M'. You time it so the pebble hits the water when A > and A' exist at the same point in space. The waves propagate outward > with A always remaining at the center. When the waves propagate > outward and reach M', the waves travel from A to M', in nature. > When the Observer at A' looks up at the surface of the water, is the Observer at A' at the center of the waves? No, but the Observer at A is. > You are staring down at water at rest. Directly below you, you see A > at the bottom of the water. Between you and A is a small flash bulb. > Off in the distance you see A' approaching A. Behind A' is M'. You > time it so the flash occurs when A and A' exist at the same point in > space. The light waves propagate outward with A always remaining at > the center. When the light waves propagate outward and reach M', the > waves travel from A to M', in nature. > > You are in a vacuum staring down. Directly below you, you see A on the > floor. The aether is at rest with respect to A. Between you and A is a > small flash bulb. Off in the distance you see A' approaching A. Behind > A' is M'. You time it so the flash occurs when A and A' exist at the > same point in space. The light waves propagate outward with A always > remaining at the center. When the light waves propagate outward and > reach M', the waves travel from A to M', in nature. |