However, there is a big problem with his claim that there is an incurable mathematical mistake with Relativity, a contention that is only briefly mentioned in the video posted above but which is gone into in detail in Mr. Bryant's previous video. In short, he seems to be arguing that Einstein's "Spherical Wave Proof" isn't describing a sphere and attempts to show as much by presenting Einstein's spherical wave in a two dimensional, stationary drawing and saying "See! It's not a sphere!"

Well, yes, actually it is a sphere. I caught this on a conceptual level while watching the video and then read in the comments that someone who is clearly far more knowledgeable about the math than I will ever be made the point so clearly that anyone who understands the basics of Relativity should be able to follow what he's saying even if you don't understand that actual math....

### Rene Dekker 3 months ago (edited)

A lot of bold statement without any justification at all in this video.

4:00 "The length of the line segments are not the same." The lengths ARE the same. The length of the line segments to each point on the light wave are given by the equation ✓(ξ²+η²+ζ²). That value is always equal to cτ, and is therefore the same in all directions for any given time τ

4:20 "The transformed shape centre is no longer at the origin" - Yes it is. The origin is the point where ξ, η, and ζ are all zero. The centre of the sphere is at that location.

4:45

**"It is a spherical wave if you take the objective of the moving observer" - that is exactly what the proof is supposed to show; that the transformed light wave equation describes an expanding sphere in the moving reference frame. So you actually agree that the proof is valid.**Frankly I totally fail to understand how somebody can acknowledge that x²+y²+z²=c²t² is the equation of an expanding sphere in the rest reference frame, but at the same time claim that the totally equivalent equation ξ²+η²+ζ²=c²τ² is NOT the equation of an expanding sphere in the moving reference frame. (Emphasis added)One's entire argument sort of falls apart when you state as a truth that which are trying to refute.

Now, having said that, this theory called "Modern Mechanics" is still intriguing to me. I'm going to watch the rest of these videos that this guy has put out and will be looking for other information about it.

Incidentally, I did catch and fully understand now why you were saying that E=mc

^{2}is an approximation. In fact, it is because this Modern Mechanics theory claims to arrive at the same equation that I'm interested in learning more about it.

Clete