BY

K.VAITHIYANATHAN
ANDIKKADU POST
PATTUKKOTTAI TALUK
THANJAVUR DISTICK
SOUTH INDIA – 614 723
EMAIL : Vaithiyanathan _k @ yahoo . com.
 INTRODUCTION

BASIC IDEA:

I Submit some conflicts in the inertial frames, on the basis’s of classical and
relativity mechanics. Which are unnoticed by any physicist till this date. I give
detailed exposition in this paper. We know Newton’s first law, which give us two
inertial frames, which the equation of physics hold good. They identified one is at
rest and other moving with velocity (v) in particular direction. To discuss more
precisely and to distinguish the difference, we introduced another two sets which
have same nature of the first one.

We can classify above three sets inertial frames with respect to relative position in
space

Same inertial reference frame

We Note it SIRE

Transformation From rest frames to rest frames or

moving frames to moving frames, this type of inertial frames have Zero relative
velocity between them K to K1 to K2 and K’ to K’1 to K’2 , are this type.

Different inertial Reference frame

We note it DIRE

Transformation from moving frame to rest frames or

rest frames to moving frame. This type of inertial frames have specific relative
velocity between them K to K’ , K1 to K1’ , K2 to K2’ , are this type.
 To transfer mechanics and electrodynamics phenomena in SIRF and DIRF.
Galileo and Newton derived a set of equations x’ = x-vt, y’=y, z’=z,t’= t with,
variant event velocity (u) in mechanics.

Lorentz and then Einstein derived their equation with invariant event velocity ‘C’
2
in electrodynamics x’=(x-vt) / √1−V2/C2 , y’=y,z’=z, t’=(T-VX/C ) / √1−V2/C2 .
In both equations, event’s velocity U and C take important role. To find out it’s real
nature in SIRF and DIRF use the equation in above inertial frames.

In SIRF:

Relative position V= 0, we have U and C are invariant nature when transfer

it, rest to rest or moving to moving inertial frames.

In DIRF:

Relative position V> 0 , U have variant nature u’ = u +v, C have invariant

nature. From the two results, the DIRF denied to accept inertial principle in the
case of mechanical event velocity . The principle ‘invariance of nature law’ which
help to physicist to connect SIRF and DIRF and hide it’s original difference. I ask
all physicists remove the above principle and find out real reason for the difference.
In this way we have lot of unsolved problems in our science, because our basic laws
of physics can’t describe all phenomena of physics.

To remove the above conflicts we need a new principle for physics. So I

submit a new concept to find out inertial and non inertial frames, and also a new
transformation equation for all physical phenomena.

I believe our transformation equation will help us to solve many problems of

Physics. I submit my manuscript for a careful review and for valuable comments of
physicist.
 INDEX
Part I
New concept for inertial and non inertial frame
Argument – 1, Argument – 2, Argument – 3,
Argument – 4, Argument – 5, Argument – 6,
Argument – 7.

Part II
New transformation equation for all physics
Argument – 8, Argument – 9, Argument – 10.

Part III
Transformation equation for all events’ velocity
Argument – 11, Argument – 12.

Part IV
Experimental test for new transformation
Equation
Experiment I, Experiment II,

Part V
Experimental process for transverse Doppler
Effect
Appendices -------
References
Figure Captions
 Part I
New concept for inertial and non inertial frame
Argument - 1
According to Galileo and Newton the SIRF and DIRF are inertial state of
motion. It is the fundamental fact of classical mechanics; we discuss the essence on
the bass of classical mechanics and relativistic mechanics.

Classical mechanics:
According to Galilean transformation equation the SIRF and DIRF have
following physical phenomena.
SIRF DIRF
K.K’ have v=0 K.K’ have v>o
Space interval ∆L’=∆∆L ∆L’=∆∆L
Time interval ∆T’=∆∆T ∆T’=∆∆T
Mass quantity M’ = M M’ = M
Simultaneity S’ = S S’ = S
Mechanical event U’ = U U’≠≠ U (U’ = (U±
± V)
Velocity u

I ask all physicists to review carefully the transformation results. In the

SIRF, M, ∆L, ∆ ∆T, S, U are invariant. In the DIRF M, ∆L, ∆T, S, are invariant
the mechanical event velocity U only variable.
The SIRF and DIRF are equal nature with respect M, ∆L, ∆T, S. So
Galileo and Newton classify the SIRF and DIRF are inertial frames, with a postulate
the mechanical event velocity U is variable. i.e infinity velocity. But they failed to
note, why SIRF and DIRF have Different nature with respect to event’s velocity
only?
Relativistic Mechanics:
According to Einstein’s transformation equation the SIRF and DIRF
have following results.
SIRF DIRF
Space interval ∆L’ = ∆L ∆L’≠≠∆∆L
Time interval ∆T’=∆ ∆T ∆T’≠∆
≠∆T
≠∆
Mass quantity M’ = M M’≠ ≠M
Simultaneity S’ = S S’ ≠ S
Electrodynamics
Event’s velocity C’ = C C’ =C.
In the SIRF ∆L, ∆T, M, S, C are invariant. But in the DIRF C only invariant, all
other Quantities are (relative) variant with respect to the relative velocity. In that
condition how Einstein accept that the moving frame is as an inertial frame?
Conclusion:
In classical mechanics and relativistic mechanics the SIRF only satisfy all
inertial condition. But DIRF not so, in that Condition how we accept the DIRF is as
inertial frame. To remove the difference in the DIRF need us a new principle and
new transformation equations.
Argument 2:
For our next argument we see Einstein’s view, what he wrote on the first
page of his 1905 paper introducing the special theory of Relativity. “It is known that
Maxwell’s electrodynamics – as usually under stood at the present time. When
applied to moving bodies leads to asymmetries, which do not appear to be inherent
in the phenomena. Take for example the reciprocal electrodynamics action of a
magnet and a conductor. The observable Phenomena here depends only on the
relativistic motion of the conductor and the magnet. Where as the customary view
draws sharp distinction between the two cases in which either one or the other of
these bodies is in motion for it the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest
there arise in the neighborhood of the magnet an electric field producing a current
at the place where parts of the conductor are situated but is the magnet is stationary
and the conductor in motion no electric field arise in the neighborhood of the
magnet. In the conductor however an electromotive force…………which, given rise
assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases discussed to electric currents
on the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former
case. Example of this sort together which unsuccessful attempts to discover any
motion of the earth relative to the light medium suggest that the phenomena of
electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the
idea of obsolete rest (INTRODUCTION OF ELECTRO DYNAMICS BY DAVID J
GRIFFITH).
From the Einstein’s arguments we arise a question what happened if the
relative velocity is zero? Here magnetic field does not create current. The current
does not produce magnetic field. So zero relative velocity produce identical physical
nature in the two frames. But relative velocity produces different physical nature;
Here we come to know, the rest state is not equal to moving state.
Conclusion:
Electrodynamics Phenomena of a rest frame is not equal to uniform moving frame.
Argument 3:
Next, our argument is about the rest state. Galileo and Newton used the
term in their inertial law. They assumed absolute rest state maybe exists in our
universe, but all of our experiments failed to find out the absolute rest. Then a
reference body identifies rest state. The reference body may be any kind of motion.
So rest state is a kind of motion. All mass point in our universe continue some from
of motion, for example our earth rotates its axis once a day and revolves around the
sun once a year, the solar system circulates around the galaxy. The galaxy itself may
be moving at high-speed trough the cosmos. In that condition, how we get the rest
state? To find out the rest state, we can use relative velocity. For example we take
some test bodies. If these bodies have zero relative velocity between themselves such
bodies are seemed to be at rest with respect to each other. The whole test bodies may
be any kind of motion with respect to a reference body. Now the test bodies are
same state of motion with respect to the reference body. From the above argument,
we come to a conclusion the same state of motion have zero relative velocity between
them. The zero relative velocity seemed to us as rest state. It is not a real it is
fictitious state. So the term at rest is unnecessary for our science. We must remove it
in our scientific dictionary. Its real meaning is same state of motion or zero relative
velocity.
 We can explain the above three state same state of motion, zero relative
velocity, and rest state by a simple thought experiment. Let us take two trains A and
B move with velocity 50 km / sec with respect to a station master C’ How the
stationmaster described the train’s velocity? He will say that the two trains A and B
move with same state of motion i.e. both trains move 50km / sec. Next observer
inside the any one of the moving train, try to watch the velocity of the other train.
He will found that the relative velocity between the two trains is zero, and also he
interpret that they are at rest with respect the each other.
Conclusion:
All mass points in the universe continue some form of motion, in the
motion they may have (V=0) Zero relative position, that position is described by
physicist rest state it’s real meaning is same state of motion, if they have v>0. This
position has specific relative velocity V its real meaning is different state of motion.
Argument 4:
Next we discuss another event: we take three frames ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ for our
arguments. The first frame ‘A’ is placed in the space without any interaction of
other bodies. Now it is inertial frame, we call it as reference frame. The second
frame ‘B’ is moves with constant velocity V in particular direction with respect to
‘A’. Newton’s first law tells us that the second frame “B” is in inertial conditions.
Next we placed the third frame “C’ in gravitational field. According to Einstein’s
equivalence principle “C’ is uniformly accelerated with respect to the “A’ here the
acceleration is constant and independent of its mass. Now the frame “C’ is inertial
with respects to its observer. “ to confirm our ideas we can see the statement in the
book” “ Introduction to the Theory of Relativity by Peter Capriole Berg Mann Page
157”.

According to Newton’s First Law, The frame A and B only inertial frame.
The frame C is Non inertial frame. But Einstein’s equivalence principle tell us that
the frame “C” is also inertial frame.
Frame this evidence , any one come to a conclusion that the Newton’s First Law is
not sufficient to find out inertial frame. So we need new principle to find out the
inertial state.
Argument 5:
We can conduct a simple experiment in the above-described three frames
“A” “B” “C”. We assume three pistols is fired, which are at rest with respect to “A”
frame. The emitted bullet penetrates the three frames in the perpendicular direction
with same velocity. The path of the bullet is recorded by the “A” “B” “C” observers
as shown in the figure.
Any one can see the similar type of experiment in the book (THE UNIVERSE AND
DR. EINSTEIN BY LINCOLIN BARNETT) from the above results we come to
know, the frame A is not equal to B and C. The path of the bullet is not
perpendicular; its direction is affected uniform constant velocity and constant
acceleration. Now the frame A is one type and B and C are another type. But
Newton’s first law tell us A and B are one type (Inertial Frame). “C” is another type
(Non Inertial Frame). The observers inside the three frames A, B, C, tell us that they
are atrest. So they are inertial state of motion: from the three results,which is
correct?
Argument 6
Now we try to find out the real nature of three frames “A” “B” “C” what
physical nature occurs in it? The rectilinear uniform motions means, all mass points
including its observer also same state of motion with respect to “ A,” but there is no
relative velocity between these mass points in side the “B” frame. So they are (at
rest) inertial state of motion. Similarly all mass points, and observer inside the “C”
frame: are same states of motion with respect to “A” there is no relative velocity
between the mass points and observer because they are affect by same acceleration.
So the observer inside the “C” frame tells that they are (at rest) inertial state. From
the above arguments we come to know “ wherever mass points have zero relative
velocity between them such mass points are inertial conditions with respect to
themselves” the whole mass points may be at rest or uniform velocity or uniform
acceleration that motion is not necessary for us find out inertial frame.
Argument 7:
We can classify the above three frame A, B, C by our new law. First we
take ‘A’ frame all mass point and their observers have zero relative velocity, so they
are inertial frame. Next we take the second frame ‘B’, all its mass points and its
observer have specific relative velocity with respect to ‘A’, so the frame B is non
inertial with respect to A. At the same time these mass points and its observer have
zero relative velocity between themselves. So B is inertial frame with respect to its
own observer. Thirdly we take the frame C, all mass points and its observer have
specific relative velocity from time to time with respect to A now the frame C is non-
inertial. At the same time its all-mass points and its observer are affect by same
acceleration. So they have zero relative velocity between the mass points and its
observer so the frame C is (at rest) inertial state with respect to its own observer
finally our conclusion is as follow:-
The frame B (uniform constant velocity) and C (uniform constant
acceleration) are non inertial frame in view of A (inertial frame); at the same time
they are inertial frames with respect to their own observers.
Conclusion:
The rest state; zero relative velocity; and same state of motion; help us to
indicate inertial frame. The straight-line uniform motion, (relative velocity) and
acceleration (change of relative velocity) help us indicate non inertial frame.
 Part II
New transformation equation for all physics
Argument 8
If two frames have zero relative velocity between them. The event velocity
U in mechanics C in electro dynamic have invariant nature. When v>0 the “C”
retain it again but U doesn’t have. Why we get the difference, to remove the conflict
we introduced new transformation equation. We take Einstein’s train experiment.
Here we use not only light velocity but also all other mechanical events velocity. The
train fully covered by glass with out any gap even air molecules also cannot pass
from inside to outside. The train its observer and its air molecules are moves a
uniform constant velocity with respect to another observer, who is placed outside
the train. There is no relative velocity between the train, the air medium, and its
observer. So they are inertial frame with respect to themselves. In the very center C
a bomb flashed. During the flash, there occur three effects; first light signal
produced and travel with velocity CL in all direction. Secondly sound is produced
and traveled with velocity Cs in all direction. Thirdly pit of equal mass particles
traveled with velocity CP. The three different velocity signal spread inside the train
in all direction with the velocity CL, Cs, Cp. Now the observer inside the train
interpret that the light signal reach the head of the train, tail of the train and roof of
the train simultaneously, in the time interval TL because the three points are equal
distance from the center, similar way the sound and the mass points reach the three
points simultaneously with time interval TS , TP. What we know from the
Gedanken experiment? The electrodynamics and classical mechanics event’s
velocity obey the relativistic principle in the moving train. If any one have doubt,
they have done the similar experiment on the earth with motionless air medium, the
earth velocity cannot affect above three results, who are observer the experiment
also on the earth. Here there is zero relative velocity between them. Here poincare
principle is confirmed.
Argument 9:
Now we take the observer, who is outside the train. According to this
observer the Einstein’s train and its all mass points inside, have relative velocity ‘V’
with respect to him. Our new principle tell us the moving Einstein’s train is non
inertial position with respect to the outside observer. But the same time all mass
points outside the train have zero relative velocity with respect to the outside
observer. But the same time all mass points outside the train have zero relative
velocity with respect to the outside observer. So they are inertial condition, now a
another bomb is flashed with same condition, which is flashed inside the train, when
the center of the moving train C coincide the outside observer. The same three
affect, the light signal; sound, and equal mass practical, travel with velocity CL, Cs,
Cp in all directions. The outside observer find the three signal reach the moving
train’s three points with different time interval and different geometrical nature.
They are not reach the three points simultaneously, because the relative velocity
affect space interval. The change of space interval affect time interval. The change
of time interval affects simultaneity.
What happened if the relative velocity V became zero. All mass points and the
observers outside the train and inside the train became at rest with respect to
each other and coincide. Now both frames are inertial. Now the space intervals are
equal, time intervals also equal, simultaneity also possible; from our argument we
have the following conclusion: -
All inertial frames have invariant nature of space, time interval and
simultaneity.
They are variant nature in non-inertial frame.
Argument No: 10
From the Einstein’s train experiment, we come to know that the relative
velocity affect space, time interval. We can calculate by mathematic, how much that
change takes place or we can find out mathematical relation. For it we compare
same two events S and S’ one is done in the train and other is outside of the train.
When the two observers coincide, the events begin to take place with a event velocity
C it may be electrodynamics or mechanics. In the moving train, the event S’ have
X’, Y’, Z’, T’ with event velocity C. In the outside the event S have X, Y, Z, T with
event velocity C. During the time interval T the relative velocity V shift the train at
a distance VT from the outside observer.

If V=0
VT =0 orgin of the two event’s frames coincide now the two frames are inertial
condition with respect to our arguments. The inertial frame has following condition.
x=x’ , y=y’ , z=z’ , ct=ct’ the event velocity C is constant with respect their own
event.
x-x’=0
y-y’=0
z-z’=0
ct-xt’=0
If v>0 the two frames are non inertial condition the origin of the two events S and
S’ are shifted data distance vt i.e. the space and time co-ordinate of the two events
are measured in different space points.

The change of space and time co-ordinate are calculated as follow

x-x’=vt -------------(1)
x’=x-vt
ct-ct’=vt
t’=t-vx/c2 --------------(2) where x=ct, x’=ct’
x- x’=vt’ ---------------(1 R) R.Reverse transformation
x=x’+vt’
ct-ct’=vt’
t=t’+vx’/c2 -------------(2 R)
The equation (1) and (2) are first order effect, From the two we can arrive second
order.
x’2-c2t’2= (x-vt)2 - (ct-vx/c2)2
x’2-c2t’2 = x2 (1-v2/c2) -c2t2 (1-v2/c2)
x’2-x2 (1-v2/c2) = c2t’2 - c2t 2(1-v2/c2)
equate both side to zero
 we have x’-x √1 –V2/C2 Second order equation for x and t

t’ = t √1 –V2/C2
This is second order effect
In the perpendicular direction in the relative velocity v=0 we have y’=y
have the signal traveled in perpendicular direction.
y=ct
y’=ct’
y’ = y = ct = ct’

If the relative velocity v>0

The train shifted at a distance VT in the X direction the relative velocity V in the X
direction affects the perpendicular direction with second order.
y= ct
y’=ct
c2t’2=c2t2(1-v2/c2)
y’=y √1 –V2/C2

We have similar effect in Z direction to also because z direction also perpendicular

to the relative velocity. Then we have
x’=x-vt x=x’+vt’ First order equation for x and t
t’=t-vx/c2 t=t’+vx’/c2
y’=y √ 1-v2/c2 y=y’ √ 1-v2/c2 Second order equation for y and z
z’=z √ 1-v2/c2 z=z’ √ 1-v2/c2
C is the event velocity in both frame which is constant with respect to their own
event S and S’
Another method:
We can arrive above transformation equation by a pierces way any one
verify the transformation equation by a direct measurement method. Chose a frame
K’ which is moving with velocity V with respect to another frame k, the observer in
the moving frame emit a mass point or a signal from the origin O’ at the time T’=0.
The emitted mass point travel with event velocity c in all direction after the time
interval T’ it reach the three points A, B, C with equal distance from O’ in the X
Y Z direction.
The distance.
OA is X’ = C T’ in the X direction
OB is Y’ = C T’ in the Y direction
OC is - X’ = -C T’ in the -X direction
We note the above process as a event S’

The observer in the K frame measure the distance X’, Y’, - X’ wit same
event velocity C
First take X’
.-V T1- O’___________________A

C T’
O ___________________________
T=0 C T1 T=T1

When the K frame observer coincide at O’ emit a mass point with velocity C at the
time T=O. When the mass point reach at A the observer O measure the time by his
clock T1 the time interval is T1. In the time interval the mass point travel the
distance C T1 the same time interval the origin of O’ shifted the distance V T1
C T1 = V T1 + C T’
C T’ = C T1 - V T1 -------------(1)
T’ = T1 - V/C T1
X’ = X- T 1V

Next we take -ve X’ direction. The observer in the K frame need time
interval T2 for the mass point reach the point C in the same time interval the origin
O’ shifted the distance VT2 from O

C ----- C T’------O’
. O
. ---------- O-V T2
From the three value we have the equation
-C T2 = -C T’ + V T2
C T’ = C T2 + V T2 -------------(2)
T’ = T2 + V/C T2
x’ = x + V T2

In the perpendicular direction K observer need time interval T to reach the point
O’ to B, in the interval T the K’ frame shifted the distance VT
C2 T2 = C2 T2+V2 T2
C2 T’2 = C2 T2-V2 T2
Y’= Y √ 1-v2/c2
In the same result we can arrive in the Z direction.
C2 T’2 = C2 T2 - V2 T2
Z’ = Z √ 1-v2/c2
From the results (1) and (2) we have
(1) x (2)
C2 T’2 = C2 T1 T2 - V2 T1 T2

= C2 T T (1-V2/C2)
C T’ = C √ T1 T2 √ 1-v2/c2

From the above calculation any one can verify following result by direct
measurement of T’, T, T1, T2 in the X, Y, -X, Z direction

T’= T √ 1-V2/C2 in the perpendicular direct. Y,Z.

T’= √ T1 T2 √ 1-V2/C2 in the +ve, -ve X direction.

From above equations

T= √ T1 T2
From the equation T = √ T1 T2 We have two condition (1) T1
≠ T 2, (2) T1 = T2 we derived above equation in first condition T1 ≠
T2 The results we have equal second order effect in the X, Y, Z, -X direction. So
we can use the second condition in the equation.
T2=( T1)2 = ( T2)2 whereT1 = T2
use the condition in the equation we have
X’ = X-VT
T’ = T-VX/C2
Y’ = Y √ 1-V2/C2
Z’ = Z √ 1-V2/C2
This is our transformation equation we have by direct measurement
method any one can verify it and confirmed above equation.
To extent the relativistic principle, from mechanics to electrodynamics.
Einstein used light velocity ‘C’ in the above equations, because in electrodynamics,
all events are occur in light velocity. In case of classical mechanics its event velocity
may be less than light velocity. But our Gedenken experiment tells us that the light
velocity and all other events behave same nature. In this condition we come across a
question why not we use other type of velocity just like sound velocity Cs or any
other particle velocity Cp in the above equation instead of light velocity.

For light velocity C For sound velocity Cs For particle velocity Cp

’
X = x-vt x’ = x-vt x’ = x-vt
y’ = y’ √ 1-V2/C2 y’ = y’ √ 1-V2/C2 s y’ = y’ √ 1-V2/C2 p
z’ = z’ √ 1-V2/C2 z’ = z’ √ 1-V2/C2 s z’ = z’ √ 1-V2/C2 p
t’ = t-vx/c2 t’ = t-vx/c2s t’ = t-vx/ c2p
We can use the above equation for all type of events velocity.
Some special cases
When v=0 i.e. relative velocity is zero
there fore x’ = x, y’ = y, z’ = z, t’ = t
When v>0 if the finite velocity i.e. event’s velocity C we get Galilean trans for
motion equation.
X’ = x-vt
Y’ = y √ 1-V2/C2
Z’ = z √ 1-V2/C2
T’ = t-vx/c2
We equate y’=y, z’=z with equal geometrical nature i.e. Cartesian co-ordinate in
both frame.
We have the condition.
X’ =(x-vt)/
T’=(t-vx/c2) /
Y’ = y √ 1-V2/C2
Z’ = z √ 1-V2/C2
Conclusion
We can use our trans for motion equation x’=x-vt, y’=y √ 1-V2/C2,
z’=z √ 1-V2/C2, t’=t-vx/c2 for all type of event’s velocity. The event velocity
“c” (light velocity) may be for electrodynamic’s and optics. For classical mechanics
“c” may be less than light velocity just like particle velocity and sound velocity.

Part III
Transformation equation for all events velocity
Argument 11
From our new transformation equation we have following differential from of
equation.
dx’ = dx-vdt
dt’= dt-v/c2 dx
dy’ = die √ 1-V2/C2
dz’ = dz √ 1-V2/C2
From the equation we can arrive the condition how relative velocity affect the event
velocity.

Dx’/dt’= dx-vdt/dt-v/c2dx ;

dy’/dt’ = dy √ 1-V2/C2/dt-vdx/c2;

dz’/dt’= dz v √ 1-V2/C2/dt-vdx/c2;

The reverse equation are

Above equation help us to transfer an events velocity from one state of

motion to another state of motion. The U’x, U’y, U’2 are the components of the
events velocity “C” in one state of motion. Ux, Uy, U2 are the components of the
same events velocity “C” another state of motion.
If v=0 above equation describe inertial condition
√ U2x+U2y+U2z = C where √ U’x2+U’y2+U’z2 = C
If relative velocity V=O the event’s velocity C is invariant.
Ux =U’x
Uy =U’y ∴ U2x+U2y+U2z= U’2x+U’2y+U’2z
U z = U ’z

If the event occur in X direction only, we have Ux= U’ x = C other components are
zero If the event occur in Y direction only Uy =U’y = C all other components are
zero. If the event occur in Z direction only we have Uz = U’z = C all other
components are zero. If relative velocity V=O the event’s velocity C is constant in all
directions. Above nature occur in Michel son Morley experiment.

Michel son Morley experiment.

In the experiment, the source and the observer have zero relative velocity
between them. Even though they are moving (same state of motion) with velocity 30
km\sec they are at rest with respect to each other (see our argument no.6). In other
words we can explain the situation as following way:
1.Michel son Morley experiment is conducted in rest state.
2.It is conducted zero relative velocity position of source* and observer.
(* here source means half silver glass plate.)
3.It is conducted in same state of motion. (The source and the observer move with
same velocity with respect to sun).
4.It is conducted in Inertial frame. Above described four situations give same result.
i.e., inertial frames result. “The velocity of light in every direction is the same” This
result is similar to mechanical event velocity. For example we throw a mass point in
east and west direction with equal force. The velocity of the mass point is same in
east and west direction” The earth velocity does not affect the above mechanical
event’s velocity because. The source and the observer have zero relative velocity i.e.,
they are at rest position. From the above experiment we come to know “All event’s
Velocity is invariant in all inertial frame.” The Michel son Morley experiment
proves it.
Fizeau’s Experiment:
In the experiment, the source and the medium does not have zero relative
velocity. Here the source is one state of motion and the medium is another state of
motion. The experiment is conducted in two different state of motion or it is
conducted in non-inertial condition (see our argument no-1)
To transfer the events velocity one state of motion to another state of motion we
must use formula.

The velocity of light in a stationery medium with refractive index n is c\n.

If the medium moves along the x axis we obtain the following expressions for the
velocity of light in the moving co-ordinate system U1 x =c\n, U12 = 0, U1y =0 we use
the above condition in the velocity transformation equation we have
The plus sign and minus sign indicate the medium velocity with respect to source
Finally we have Ux = (c\n)± ± (1-1\n2)V
This is nothing but Fizeau’s result, which we have from velocity transformation
equation. This result tells us the events velocity is independent to the medium
velocity.
DOUBLE STARS EXPERIMENT
In the double star experiment the source (star) and the observer (earth)
have specific relative velocity. This experiment also conducted in two different state
of motion our argument no. 7, tell us that the above position is non-inertial
condition.
To transfer the events velocity one state of motion to another state of motion we use
the formula.

If the velocity C is transferred along the “X” axis only. We obtain the following
condition.
Uy =0, Uz=0

The (+) and (-) sign indicate that the light signal emitted by the star.
When it moves away from the observer and moves towards the observer. The
observed event velocity by an observer in the earth is calculated as follow:-

This shows that the event velocity C is independent to the source velocity.

A GEDANKEN EXPERIMENT FOR MECHANICAL EVENT VELOCITY

A man walk in the moving Einstein’s train with velocity 80 km/h, we note
it C as event velocity its component velocity are:- U’x, U’y, U’z
√U’2x+U’2y+U’2z =C= 80 km/h
Then the observers outside the train try to find out the velocity of the man. The
relative velocity, between the train and the outside observer is “V”, we transfer the
events velocity one state of motion. To another state of motion. We can use the
velocity transformation equation with respect to our argument no.11 so the
corresponding velocity component of the man with respect to out side observer are
Ux Uy U’z
From the result we come to know the mans velocity is 80km/h with respect to
outside observer.
From the result we come to know the mechanical event velocity also
independent to the relative velocity, above result is conflict to classical mechanical
result but it coincide relativistic principle.
From the above three results (Fizeau’s Double star, and the mechanical
events velocity) we come to know that the event velocity is invariant. We cannot
add any velocity with it . Then what is the meaning of Newton’s addition of velocity
C+V, C-V, independent velocity, dependent velocity and Einstein’s limiting speed of
the universe? The answer is there is no meaning, above velocity are not real, it is
nothing but of geometrical effect of the two space points in the non-inertial frame.
In inertial frame there is no way to arise such question, because events velocity is
invariant in all inertial frame because all its mass points are at rest (i.e., zero
relative velocity ) with respect to each other except events velocity so there is no way
to add my other velocity with events velocity.

CONCLUSION
We can use the velocity transformation equation

for all type of velocity in mechanics and electro dynamics.

Argument 12
Next we discuss a conflict in the Einstein’s two postulates which are given below:-
1.The Principle of equivalence of physical law: according to this principle all
phenomena of physics appear the same in all inertial frame.
2.Principle of constancy of velocity of light: It states that the speed of light is same in
all the directions.
And
It is independent of the relative uniform motion of the observer, source of light and
the medium.
No one can find out a conflict between these two postulates till this date.
Now we discuss the essence of the two postulates. The first postulates cover not only
mechanics but also electrodynamics and optics but the second postulate cover only
electrodynamics and optics not mechanics because it speaks only light velocity ( i.e.,
electrodynamics event’s velocity). All events, in electrodynamics and optics occur in
light velocity. In mechanics events velocity may be less than light velocity. The
event’s velocity of electrodynamics and mechanics also a phenomenon of physics.
 It must be same in all inertial frame with respect to Einstein’s 1st
postulates. If we accept the first postulate, the second must cover all events velocity
i.e., It must be following form “All events velocity is invariant in all inertial frame”
now the first postulates is coincide the second postulate. Then what happened the
second part of the second postulate. The light velocity C is independent of the
relative velocity of the source and observer. This nature is not coincide, the
mechanics events velocity, which is dependent of the source velocity.
This conflict is not mistake of science, it is mistake of our knowledge; to
understand the above nature properly, we use the three experiment.
1.Michel son Morley experiment.
2.Fizeau’s experiment.
3.Double stars experiment.
In the first experiment (Michel son Experiment) what we know? The
earth, the observer and the source have same state of motion (i.e., 30km/sec.) with
respect to sun eventhough they move such velocity they have zero relative velocity
between themselves, so they are at rest with respect to each other according to our
argument the observer, The source and the earth are as inertial frame.
In this inertial frame the light velocity is equal in all direction this result is
similar as the speed of a mass points throw all directions with same force its velocity
is equal in all direction.
From the result we come to know, all the events velocity it may be mechanic or
electrodynamics are invariant in the inertial frame. The independent velocity,
dependent velocity, are not possible here. This result confirm Einstein’s first
postulate “all phenomena of physics appear the same in inertial frame”.
The second and third experiment prove the second part of the Einstein’s
second postulate. In these experiments the source and the observer (or medium in
the Fizious experiment) have specific relative velocity between them the relative
velocity give different results in electrodynamics and mechanics. Why we get the
different type of results. The answer is relative velocity; which yield independent
nature of light velocity dependent nature of mass point velocity, according to our
arguments no. We get the equation

If we use the above velocity transformation equation for mechanic and

electrodynamics events velocity, we again get the postulate “all events velocity is
invariant” For Example:- see my Argument no.11
Conclusion:

The second part of the postulate of Einstein, not obey the inertial condition. There
need two states of motion for independent velocity and depend velocity. It is non-
inertial condition, If we use velocity transformation equation
 to transfer a events velocity from one state of motion to another state of
motion. The independent velocity of electrodynamics, dependent velocity classical
mechanics, have no meaning. We have same results that the event velocity is
invariant. The relative velocity between the two states of motion does not affect it.

Part IV
Experimental test for new transformation equation
Here we describe two experiments, which are basically constructed, on our
new concept. Any one can verify it by following experiments. Before it we describe
nature of our new transformation equation.
X’=x-vt
y’ =y √1-v2/c2
z’=z √1-v2/c2
t’=t-vx/c2
x, y, z, t are space time co-ordinate in one state of motion. x’, y’, z’, t’ are in another
state at motion. V is the velocity difference between the two states of motion. C is the
finite velocity to measure the space-time co-ordinate or event velocity. When v=0 the
geometrical nature is invariant in both frames. So the space-time co-ordinate is
invariant. When v>0, the geometrical nature is variant with respect to the velocity v.
The space-time co-ordinate are changes.
Experiment I
Take full of water in large vessel and a source to produce wave front on
the water surface. We can consider, the water surface is one reference frame, and
the source is another reference frame. At first, we arrange the water surface, and
the source, are same state of motion with respect to earth. (According to Newton the
water surface, source and the earth are at rest with respect to each other).
The velocity difference between the two frames water and source is zero
(v=0). The above two frames water and source, have equal geometrical nature. We
have space-time co-ordinate relation between the two frames by our transformation
equation. . x’=x,y’=y,z’=z,t’=t the space time coordinate are invariant.
In this condition the source produce wave front on the water surface. Now any one
can see that the wave fronts spread out in all direction with equal velocity. We can
measure space time co-ordinate between the two subsequent wave front in X and Y
direction and found they are equal in X and Y direction.
Next we allow the water surface to move with velocity V in X direction.
Now the source and the earth are same state of motion ( at rest) the water is
different state of motion. With respect to source (i.e., it moves with velocity V in X
direction) here the water surface and source have velocity difference V. So the
geometrical nature changes with respect to V. The change of geometrical nature
affects space time coordinate. Now the source produced No_ of waves front with
equal time interval moving water surface. In these conditions we can use our
transformation equation to measure space and time coordinate of the wave front in
X and Y direction. Now any one can take photograph of the moving wave front and
measure the space time interval between two wave front in x1and y1 direction and
found it is equal to the calculated value. x’ = x-V t in X direction
 y’ = y- √1-V2/c2 in Y direction.
We can draw geometrical shape of the waves fronts on the moving and
rest state water surface with systematic unit scale as follows: SEE THE PICTURE 1
AND 2
We assume the wave velocity C = 2cm / sec.
The source velocity or water velocity V = 1cm/sec.
The source produce first , second , third and fourth wave front on the moving water
surface at time t1=0, t2=1, t3=2, t4=3 from the point O, P, Q, R.
At the end of the fourth second the waves are in the position A, B, C, D.
The source is placed at S. Now we compare the space coordinate from these to figure
in X and Y direction.
X’1=X1-vt = 8-4 = 4 Cm.
X’2=X2+vt = 8+4 = 12 Cm.
Y’=y √ 1-v2/c2= 8 1-12/22 =6.9Cm.
Above calculated value is Coincide the measurement value
X’1=4Cm, X1= 8Cm, X’2=12Cm, X2=8Cm.
Y’ = 6.9cm, y=8cm
In this same way we can compare the space co-ordinate between two front from
these two fig.
x1’= 1cm x1= 2cm x1= x-v t= 2-1=1cm
x2’= 1cm x2= 2cm ”
x3’= 1cm x3= 2cm ”
x4’= 3cm x4= 2cm x1= x-v t= 2+1=3cm
x5’= 3cm x5= 2cm ”
x6’= 3cm x6= 2cm ”
y1’= 1.72cm y1= 2cm y1= y √ 1-v2 /c2 =1.7
y2’= 1.72cm y2= 2cm ”
y3’= 1.72cm y3= 2cm ”
To find out the time relation we divide above space co-ordinate by wave front
Velocity 2cm/sec
CONCLUSION:
In the fig (1) The source and the water surface are same state of motion
both are inertial state of motion (both are at rest state). The wave front velocity is
equal in all directions. The wave velocity is invariant. In this condition source
velocity cannot exceed wave velocity. If water or source begin to move, they lose
their inertial condition so any event velocity cannot exceed particle velocity in all
inertial frame.
In the fig(2) the source and water surface are different state of motion.
The geometrical shape of the wave fronts is change. The wave velocity C is not equal
in all direction. In this condition the source velocity can exceed signal velocity due to
the geometrical effect. So the factor (1-v/c), (1+v/c), √1-v2/c2 are geometrical effect
in the x and y direction in non-inertial state of motion.
In the second fig.(2) what happened v=0. The source position O, P, Q, R, S are
coincide at 0. The inclined lines are deviated to perpendicular direction and coincide
to A1.B1. The geometrical change disappear from the above example we come to
know that the Newton’s addition of velocity c+v,c-v are nothing but geometrical
effect in non inertial frame.
Experiment II
According to Einstein’s concepts the transverse Doppler effect only
possible for light signal only not for sound wave. But our new transformation
equation help us to observe transverse Doppler effect for sound waves.
x’=x-vt x=x’+vt’
y’=y √1-v2/c2 y=y √1-v2/c2
z’=z √1-v2/c2 z=z √1-v2/c2
t’=t-vx/c2 t=t’+vx/c2
From the above equation we arrive frequency transformation equation
from non inertial frame to inertial frame. In other words we can say frequency
transformation equation one geometrical nature to another.
t’= t(1-v/c) t= t’(1+v/c)
put t=1/v t’=1/v’
therefore v’= v(1+v/c), v= v’(1-v/c)
The above two equation describes frequency relation between two state of
motion with different geometrical nature. The factor (1+v/c), (1-v/c) are first order
geometrical effect in the x direction. There is another geometrical effect, which is
nothing but second order in perpendicular direction. To compare wave frequency in
two different state of motion. We must consider first and second order geometrical
effect. To include second order effect we put a constant K in the above two equation
v’= kv(1+v/c), v= v1k(1-v/c) put the value of v’ in the above equation we have
2
v = v k (1-v2/c2)
ie., k = 1/ √ 1- v2/c2
So the equation are v = v1(1- v/c)/ √1-√ v2 /c2
v ‘ = v(1+ v/c)/ √1- v2 /c2
From these equation we can arrive second order Doppler effect by removing the
first order effect.
When the source is receding from the observer the velocity difference is (+ve )
when the source is approaching towards the observer the velocity difference is (-ve).
If we put the two condition in the above equation we have
v1 = v’(1- v/c)/ √1- v2 /c2
v2 = v’(1+ v/c)/ √1- v2 /c2
If we find mean frequency the first order effect is removed remaining second order
effect only exit.
vm = (v1 + v2) 1/2 = v’ / √1- v2 /c2
To find out the second order effect we must compare the inertial state of motion
frequency (rest state of frequency) because the geometrical nature of the same state
of motion is (rest state ) different to moving state:
 vm- v’ = v’/ √1- v2 /c2 - v’
= v’- v’/ √1- v2 /c2

√1-v2 /c2
vm- v’/ vm = 1- √ 1- v2 /c2 =1/2 v2 /c2
For Sound waves ‘C’ is sound Velocity

For light waves ‘C’ is light Velocity

Part V
Experimental Process
Transverse Doppler effect for Sound Waves
According to Einstein’s concepts the transverse Doppler effect only possible
for light signal, not for sound wave. But our new concepts and our new
transformation equation helps us to observe transverse Doppler effect for sound
waves. If we observe such effect, it is a excellent proof of our new transformation
equation and our new concept. Here we discuss a experimental idea to observe
transverse Doppler effect for sound waves.

Sound waves in inertial condition :

Select a source (s) to produce sound wave with constant frequency in air
medium. The air medium is one reference frame the source is another reference
frame. When the source (s) the air medium (m) and the observer (m1m2) are same
state of motion. So they have zero relative velocity between them with respect to our
new concept they are inertial condition. The observed and the produced frequency
are same geometrical nature so they are equal in all direction.
In the fig-1

S is a source which produce sound wave in air medium with constant

frequency v by a oscillator H. The produced sound wave spread in air medium with
velocity C = 330 m/s in all direction. The two mike m1 and m2 are set to observe
the frequency with minimum angle 41 and 42 as shown in the fig 41 = 42 . The
observed frequency are connected in C R O or radar screen, now we can compare
or measured the wave length and frequency by the screen. Observed frequency in 41
and 42 direction and the mean (v1+ v2) /2 = vm = v
Sound wave in non inertial condition :
Next, we arrange to move the air medium or sound source in X direction with
velocity difference V between the source and the medium or the observer and the
medium. The difference of velocity affect the geometrical nature of the sound wave.
The change of geometrical nature affect the space time coordinate of the sound
wave. Here, for our experimental convenient the air medium m is moves with
velocity U by a fan. We measured the medium velocity with suitable devise when the
source produced sound wave it occur in same space point with respect to the source.
But when it transfer to moving air medium the origins of the sound waves are
placed in different space points. From the different space points the sound wave
travel with velocity C in all direction. The change of origin affect the geometrical
nature of the waves. It means the space and time coordinate of the sound waves are
change. The observer, m1 and m2 are placed with an angle 41 ‘ 42 ‘ which is equal to
inertial condition angle 41, 42 both side of the Y axis. The wavelength and its

frequency in the direction are over shadowed first and second order geometrical
effect. If we add the frequency of the both side and find the mean the first order
effect cancelled remaining second order effect only present. If we compare it with
inertial frame frequency we can easily find out the second order effect in this way
we can arrive the second order transverse Doppler effect by removing all other
effect which produced by moving air medium.
 REFERENCES

LINCOIN BARNETT THE UNIVERSE AND DR.EINSTEIN 1958 MINERVA PRESS 33,
BROADWAY MADRAS-1, (TAMIL TRANSLATION) 157.
A.EINSTEIN ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES DOWNLOAD
G.S.JOURNAL 1905 http/www/ wbabin.net/papers.htm
Aleksandar vukeija April 2005 Mathematical Invalidity of the loventz transformation and
Relativity Theory.
Victor yakovenko - 15 November 2004 Derivation of the lorentz transformation.
AN. MATVEEV MECHANICS AND THEORY OF RELATIVITY 1989 MIR PUBLISHER
MOSCOW ENGLISH TRANSLATION 13 - 895.
PETER GABRIEL BERGMANN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY 1992
PRENTICE - HALL OF INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED 3 - 222.
VLDIMIROW N.MITSKIEVICLT SPACE TIME GRAVITATION 1987 MIR PUBLISHER
MOSCOW ENGLISH TRANSLATION 11 - 209.
V.A.UGAROV SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY 1979 MIR PUBLISHER MOSCOW 11 -
360.
D.P.GRIBNOV ALBERT EINSTEINS PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWS AND THE THEORY OF
RELATIVITY 1987 PROGRAS PUBLISHER MOSCOW ENGLISH TRANSLATION 5 - 232.
 A.LOGUNOV, M.MESTVIRSHVILI THE RELATIVISTIC THEORY OF GRAVITATION 1989
MIR PUBLISHER MOSCOW ENGLISH TRANSLATION 14 - 195.
CHARLE HARPER INTRODUCTION TO MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS 1993 PRENTICE
HALL OF INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED NEW DELHI.
B.D.GUPTA MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS 1993 VIKAS PUBLISHING HOUSE PVT LTD 3-1,
3-71, 15-1, 15-149.
SHANTHI NARAYAN, J.N.KAPUR A TEXT BOOK OF VECTOR CALCULUS 1994 S.CHAND
COMPANY LTD 77-88, 255-285.
A.V.BITSADZE EQUATIONS OF MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS 1980 MIR PUBLISHER
MOSCOW ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
A.MISHCHENKO AND A.FOMENKO A COURSE OF DIFFERENTIAL 1988 MIR
PUBLISHER MOSCOW ENGLISH TRANSLATION 294 - 366.
THE PEYNMAN LECTURES ON PHYSICS VOLUME-1 1995, VOLUME-2 NAROSA
PUBLISHING HOUSE NEWDELHI 1377- 1395, 107-130, 182-222.
AJAY CHATAK OPTICS 1993 TATA MCGRAW HILL PUBLISHING COMPANY LIMITED
324, 355, 627.
J.D.JACKSON CLASSICAL ELECTRODYNAMICS 1975 WILEY EASTERN LIMITED 503 -
613.
GUPTA, KUMAR, SHARMA CLASSICAL MECHANICS 1991-92 PRAGATI PRAKASHAN
MEERUT INDIA 320 - 349.
FILONOVICH THE GREATEST SPEED 1986 MIR PUBLISHER MOSCOW ENGLISH
TRANSLATION 5 - 275.
I.K.KINOIN A.K.KIKOIN SENIOR PHYSICS 1987 MIR PUBLISHER MOSCOW 24,31.
L.LANDAU AND A.KITAIGORO DSKY PHYSICS FOR VERY ONE 1978 MIR PUBLISHER
MOSCOW 37,387.
A.KITAIGORODSKY INTRODUCTION TO PHYSICS 1981 MIR PUBLISHER MOSCOW
ENGLISH TRANSLATION 134 - 321.
S.E.FRISH PROBLEMS OF WAVE OPTICS 1976 MIR PUBLISHER MOSCOW 7-59.
S.P.STELKOV MECHANICS 1978 MIR PUBLISHER MOSCOW 23 - 51, 513 - 554.
I.V.SAVELUEW FUNDAMENTALS OF THEORETICAL PHYSICS VOLUME-1, VOLUME-2
1982 MIR PUBLISHER MOSCOW 125 - 147.
HERBERT GOLDSTEIN CLASSICAL MECHANICS 1985 ADDISON WESLEY PUBLISHING
COMPANY NEW DELHI 275 - 326.
B.A.IVANOV FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS 1989 MIR PUBLISHER MOSCOW ENGLISH
TRANSLATION 30 - 31.
K.POLIVANO THE THEORY OF ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD 1983 MIR PUBLISHER
MOSCOW ENGLISH TRANSLATION 9 - 17.
K.N.MUKKIN EXPERIMENTAL MUCLEAR PHYSICS VOLUME-1, VOLUME-2 1987 MIR
PUBLISHER MOSCOW ENGLISH TRANSLATION 291.
B.M.YAVORSKY & A.A.PINSKY FUNDAMENTALS OF PHYSICS 1975 MIR PUBLISHER
MOSCOW 28 -35, 110 - 128
 L.A.ARTSIMOVICH AND S.YO.LUCKYNOV MOTION OF CHARGED PARTICLES IN
ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC 1980 MIR PUBLISHER MOSCOW ENGLISH TRANSLATION
128 - 133.
I.V.SAVELVEV PHYSICS 1980 MIR PUBLISHER MOSCOW 222 - 247.
A.I.KITAIGORODSKY PHOTONS AND NUCLEI 1981 MIR PUBLISHER MOSCOW 108 -
127.
L.S.ZHADANOV PHYSICS FOR THE TECHNICIAN 1980 MIR PUBLISHER MOSCOW 394 -
401.
SUBRAMANYAN BRIJLAL A TEXT BOOK OF OPTICS 1993 S.CHAND & COMPANY LTD.
NEW DELHI 577 - 582.
I.V.SAVELYEV PHYSICS VOLUME-2 1980 MIR PUBLISHER MOSCOW 470 - 481.
DONALD T. GREENWOOD CLASSICAL DYNAMICS 1985 PRENTICE HALL OF INDIA
PRIVATE LIMITED NEW DELHI 272 - 315.
G.S.LANDS BERG TEXT BOOK OF ELEMENTARY PHYSICS 1972 MIR PUBLISHER
MOSCOW 21 - 91.
H.S.HAMS, S.P.PURI MECHANICS 1988 TATA MCRAW HILL PUBLISHING COMPANY
LTD 52 - 78, 80 - 114, 259 - 361.
A.N.MATVEEV OPTICS MIR PUBLISHER MOSCOW 33, 40 - 42.
DAVID J.GIREFFITHS INTRODUCTION TO ELECTRODYNAMICS 1999 ASOKE K.GHOSH
PRENTICE HALL OF INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED NEW DELHI 477 - 541.
BRIJLAL SUBRAMANYAM MECHANICS AND RELATIVITY 1990 S.CHAND & COMPANY
LTD NEW DELHI 253 - 298.
A.W.JOSHI MATRICES AND TENSORS IN PHYSICS 1995 NEW AGE INTERNATIONAL (P)
LTD PUBLISHER NEW DELHI 232, 251, 292.
FINOA MAC DONALD ALBERT EINSTEIN 1994 ORIENT LONGMAN LIMITED
HYDERABAD INDIA.
L.V.TARASOV A.N.TARASOUA DISCUSSIONS ON REFRACTION OF LIGHT 1984 MIR
PUBLISHER MOSCOW 233 - 235, 50 - 66.
A.M.VASILYEV AN INTRODUCTION TO STATISICAL PHYSICS 1983 (ENGLISH
TRANSLATION) 210 - 214.
L.A.SENA A COLLECTION OF QUESTIONS AND PROBLEMS IN PHYSICS 1988 MIR
PUBLISHER MOSCOW ENGLISH TRANSLATION 151 - 154.
 Figure Captions

Figure Captions