# Mr. Einstein: Where is my mistake?

jaquecusto
jaquecusto

jaquecusto
jaquecusto

jaquecusto
jaquecusto

Ufonaut99
Ufonaut99

Hi jaquecusto

I would say that your mistake is in thinking that Einstein would say that there is some logical or mathematical error in classical mechanics

Or to put it another way, that saying that classical mechanics is valid somehow implies that SR must therefore be invalid (as if logical consistency is mutually exclusive between them).

It's not, of course (*). Our view is that both classical and relativistic mechanics are both perfectly valid; it's just that classical mechanics becomes increasingly poor at modelling reality at high speeds or accurate measurements.

It's similar to tiling with square tiles. There's nothing logically wrong with tiling a flat plane, but that model becomes increasingly poor when applied to the reality of earth's surface.

(*) Of course, several on this forum would claim that SR is somehow invalid. Fair enough, that's up to them to find some error. The point here is that the consistency of classical mechanics does not of itself imply any fault in SR.

roger
roger

>>>Our view is that both classical and relativistic mechanics are both perfectly valid; it's just that classical mechanics becomes increasingly poor at modelling reality at high speeds or accurate measurements.

which is nonsense. The derivation of SR starts from assuming classical mechanics, and then starts making mistakes so as to get the Lorentz equations. If classical mechanics is valid then SR is just nonsense built from mistakes.

jaquecusto
jaquecusto

Mathematically Valid and Physically Valid.

Mathematically Valid and Physically Invalid

Let's say two particles, one pushing the other, starts a trip on Earth's Equator from the Greenwich Meridian. Either of the two particles will go around the Earth at the same time.

The velocity of each particle don't changes.

What will change is the speed of distancing and approaching the particles. At the point of departure, the two particles separate at twice the speed of each. At the point of arrival, the two particles approach each other at double speed.

During the circular path, is possible to apply trigonometric sine and cosine relations to know the velocities of distancing and approaching the two particles.

In short, physics and mathematics have full agreement on the issue of the sum of forces. As for the matter of velocity sum, this is only acceptable in mathematical terms. In physical terms, this reasoning is pure idiocy.

Anonym
Anonym

>>which is nonsense. The derivation of SR starts from assuming classical mechanics, and then starts making mistakes so as to get the Lorentz equations. If classical mechanics is valid then SR is just nonsense built from mistakes.

true.

Gerd Termathe
Gerd Termathe

Einstein very first error is the derivaton of the Lorentz factor:

SR starts with the distances between three points on a straight line:
x=ct, the distance between the origin of the stationary frame and the light front
vt, the distance between the origins of the stationary and the moving frame, and, last not least,
x', the distance between the origin of the moving frame and the light front.

Thus x'=ct-vt=(1-v/c)x follows from simple arithmetics, while Einstein's erroneous result is x'=gamma(ct-vt).

Anonym
Anonym

yes.

jaquecusto
jaquecusto

Thanks, My friends!

When does relative movement make mathematical and physical sense at the same time?

With only three elements, this is impossible, ie:

1 - Reference frame (the frame of the figure shown above) or inertial observer point;

2 - Movement of the red particle;

3 - Movement of the green particle.

This has been discussed in previous posts.

But this problem can change if a fourth moving element enters the frame, for example: wind or sea current.

The travel time of a ship depends on the direction of the sea current. The sea current may be related to the seafloor, or Mach Relational Referential.

An airplane may be moving in relation to the ground, but will have its support affected in accordance with the wind direction, also related to the ground. Idem, Mach Relational Referential.

The bed of the sea and the earth ground serve as absolute reference, so that the movement of the ship and the airplane can be explained by physics and mathematics without conflict.