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 @freemo
Your illustration involving a ball tossed between two people, will be seen as a diagonal when viewed from a differnet moving perspective.
But its not like this with light.
According to every physicist including einstein, Light is the only thing that is absolute, its own self is the ONLY absolute frame of reference, which is why light is invariably always c.
Because physicists are saying that lights frame is the preferred frame. (the only absolute frame)
So in your scenario you have done the impossible, you have set the observer who sees the diagonal as if he were in the absolute preferred frame of light!
He cannot be in that frame of reference. Its absolute.

The two guys trying to toss the ball between each other wont have any problem if its a ball, which gains the inertia of the guys, as the ball has mass it CAN gain the inertia of the guys, but light cant, as its without mass.
If you try to reverse it, and claim that the guys are not moving, they are just tossing the ball back and forth, its the observer that is moving past, so he will see the diagonal, then still it only can work for a ball, not light? Why? Because in this scenerio, with the moving observer, you now have him AND light in the same absolute frame, again its not possible.
Anyway, what are you going to do with Einstein and every other physicist who say flat out, that light is NOT dependent on the motion of the source?
So move the guy who tosses the photon or the guy trying to catch it, and they will NOT stay in the same frame as the photon, as my video shows.
You guys are talking around in circles, contracting your own claims with weak logic.
A photon has no mass, therefore no inertia and cant have any momentum, relativistic or not.

@zeccano

No thats not what einstein or physicists say, just you.

Its easy to make things up when you dont even understand the basics...

Not to mention what you are claiming directly contradicts experimental results like everything you said. The Michelson–Morley experiment directly contradicts your claim.

@CCoinTradingIdeas

@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
Einstein said the the speed of light remains constant irrespective of the motion of the source. Its a basic postulate of SR.
speed is motion is it not? motion can be forward or sideways, so if light is not affected by motion forward then it cant be affected by the motion in in any other direction can it?
If you say it CAN be affected by sideways motion, then this is ADDING speed to light speed.
This is impossible.
Unless you think that light slows down in the original direction as you turn the source to face another direction????

If a ball is moving east at a set speed, and I add force in the north direction, then the result will be a new velocity, a new direction and an increase in speed!

@zeccano

This is the problem with you not understanding basics, you dont even understand the words your reading..

The **speed** of light is a constant, no speed is not the same as meaning "motion", motion is a non technical word but in the way you are using it you are trying to imply the **direction** light travels is invarianet, that is not the case.

And yes light is effected in the forward direction, it is just that its **speed** isnt effected by it. Likewise light is effected int he sideway direction, yet again its **speed** is not

Also the the millionth time, the experimental evidence directly contradicts all the nonsense your spouting.

Funny how you keep ignoring the experiments, experiments you can do and see for yourself, but keep relying on your own fauly interpritionation of something you dont seem to understand.

@CCoinTradingIdeas