I have been following this conversation for a while now:
https://qoto.org/@zeccano/103205964102778422
@freemo, problem is that @zeccano does not understand what "relative to" and the "frame of reference" are or mean.
Without understanding this, it's all total waste of time.
It's also painfully obvious, when you bring up the bus and the ball.
I am not sure why zeccano cant (or refuses) to understand that if I send you a photon, while we both move, I see it travelling in a straight line from me to you and you see the same.
Now, for someone OUTSIDE of our frame, the photon moves diagonally relative to his reference point.
Exactly what happens if I was standing on a bridge, looking down at the bus and those 2 kids towing a ball to each other.
This is where people screw up. They mix the frames of reference where events occur and where they are - outside of it.
It's like they refuse to understand you can have a frame inside a frame.
This is also causes the confusion about why the laws of physics remain the same in all inertial frames of reference.
🇳🇱
@CCoinTradingIdeas @zeccano Its hard to say but there is clearly a very strong dose of willfully looking for strtetches of the imagination that supports his view, rather than trying to seek out an objective truth.
He weaves ever more elaborate "questions" which in and of themselves arent bad to ask, but it is when it plays out in this fashion, relying on theory rather than what is actually observed or experimentally shown and trying to explain that instead.
What he doesnt realize is that if his counter argument were true then it would effectively violate galilean relativity, which if true would cause the vast majority of physics as we know it to be paradoxical.
His idea also relies on the false preconception that light is massless and lacks even relativitic mass. Though if this were true then any energy imparted to it would cause it to travel at infinite speed rather than at C, which again is paradoxical and unresolved in his system of thought.
The word mass in relativistic mass is also a massive :) source of confusion.
"...A common misconception that can be attributed to the concept of relativistic mass is that an object changes its internal structure by gaining mass when it travels at relativistic speeds. The object’s internal structure is independent of its velocity and it will always appear to be the same in its rest frame. The source of this confusion is that relativistic mass depends on the frame in which the object is observed and the concept of mass is typically regarded as a property of an object. See also our FAQ on the mass energy equivalence.
Source https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-is-relativistic-mass-and-why-it-is-not-used-much/ "
Yea this should be obvious for anyone who has observed doppler shift. We know relativitic mass is relative to the energy observed in an object, which with light is represented as its frequency.
So the color of light or the frequency of an EM wave is a direct indication of its relativistic mass. This in turn obviously depends on its frame of reference which is why we have red shift and blue-shift in a frame-dependent way.
But all these points of confusion aside lets be real here, we are talking about someone who has their own well established dogma who admits to being unable to do the math. Inability to be able to investigate these things deeply, combined with dogma, is a crippling combination even for people with good faith intentions.
