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.