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.
No one claimed the motion of a photon is independent of its source, we know that is not true. Only its **velocity** is.
Sorry I forgot you dont understand the topic, let me rephrase what I meant so you can understand.
Only the **speed** at which a photon moves (in a vacuum) is constant and independent of the source. The **direction** in which it moves however is relative.
Please stop repeating that light has no mass and other things you dont understand. I already provided for you the equation that is used to calculate a photons effective mass
Again it doesnt have **rest** mass, which should be obvious since it cant be at rest.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
What sort of physics are you using here? Micky Mouse Physics?
velocity IS motion. and motion is velocity, you cant have motion without velocity, or vice versa when it comes to light. Or anything else, but you need to specify speed rather than velocity far anything that can be moving in non inertial trajectories.