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 @zeccano
The same for planets rotating around the sun when the sun moves through the universe. People wrongly think that the sun is dragging the planets with it through the universe but the reality is that the planets already move in the same direction as the sun is moving.
The only thing the sun does is bend the path in the X and Y direction but has no influence on the Z direction both the planets moving and the sun are moving.
🇳🇱
Yup, if the sun didnt exist or suddenly disapeared the earth would keep on following the same path through the galazy as the sun..
This becomes obvious when you realize the distance at which an object orbits depends entierly on its velocity and has nothing to do with its mass. So the suns orbit around the center of the galazy would be the same as the earth simply due to their existing momentum.
