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.
Bear in mind I dont judge you for being wrong, I judge you for being wrong, knowing you arent capable of understanding the math (your own admission) yet still being cock sure of yourself.
That is generally a combination that would make anyone look bad.
I already did
https://qoto.org/@freemo/103217266114575812
Please dont speak for einstein or physicist when you clearly dont understand the subject. They have stated very clearly that it has mass (link to equation above for a photon), it simply doesnt have **rest** mass. It does however have effective/real/observed mass (called relativistic mass).
And again regardless of any absurd nonsense you may claim the experimental evidence directly contradicts you.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
Just show me the equation that shows that light can have mass.
This seems to be the sticking point here.
Light has no mass, therefore no momentum, and inertia cant be imbued to it by motion of the source. Thats my claim.
Backed up with einsteins statement that the motion of the source cant affect light.
What have you got to counter this?
It needs to be pretty good.