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 K _{1} to K _{2} 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’ , K _{1} to K _{1} ’ , K _{2} to K _{2} ’ , are this type.
To transfer mechanics and electrodynamics phenomena in SIRF and DIRF.
Galileo and Newton derived a set of equations x’ = xvt, 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’ in electrodynamics x’=(xvt) / √√√√1111−−−−V ^{2} /C ^{2} , y’=y,z’=z, t’=(TVX/C ^{2} ) / √√√√1111−−−−V ^{2} /C ^{2} . 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.
Space interval Time interval Mass quantity Simultaneity Mechanical event Velocity u
SIRF K.K’ have v=0 ∆∆∆∆L’=∆∆∆∆L ∆∆∆∆T’=∆∆∆∆T M’ = M S’ = S U’ = U
DIRF K.K’ have v>o ∆∆∆∆L’=∆∆∆∆L ∆∆∆∆T’=∆∆∆∆T M’ = M S’ = S U’≠≠≠≠ U (U’ = (U±±±± V)
I ask all physicists to review carefully the transformation results. In the
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:
SIRF, M,
_{∆}_{∆}_{∆}_{∆}_{L}_{,} _{∆}_{∆}_{∆}_{∆}_{T}_{,} S, U are invariant. In the DIRF
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 Electrodynamics 
S’ = S 
S’ 
_{≠}_{≠}_{≠}_{≠} S 
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 highspeed 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 abovedescribed 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 allmass 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 straightline 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 C _{L} 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 C _{L} , 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 T _{L} 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 T _{S} , T _{P} . 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 C _{L} , 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 noninertial 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. 
xx’=0
yy’=0
zz’=0
ctxt’=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 coordinate of the two events are measured in different space points.
The change of space and time coordinate are calculated as follow
xx’=vt (1)
x’=xvt
ctct’=vt
t’=tvx/c ^{2} (2)
x x’=vt’ (1 R)
x=x’+vt’
ctct’=vt’
t=t’+vx’/c ^{2} (2 R)
where x=ct, x’=ct’
R.Reverse transformation
The equation (1) and (2) are first order effect, From the two we can arrive second order.
x’ ^{2} c ^{2} t’ ^{2} = (xvt) ^{2}  (ctvx/c ^{2} ) ^{2}
x’ ^{2} c ^{2} t’ ^{2} = x ^{2} (1v ^{2} /c ^{2} ) c ^{2} t ^{2} (1v ^{2} /c ^{2} )
x’ ^{2} x ^{2} (1v ^{2} /c ^{2} ) = c ^{2} t’ ^{2}  c ^{2} t ^{2} (1v ^{2} /c ^{2} )
equate both side to zero
_{}_{}_{}_{}_{}_{}_{}_{} we have
x’x √1 –V ^{2} /C ^{2}
t’ = t √1 –V ^{2} /C ^{2}
Second order equation for x and t
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
c ^{2} t’ ^{2} =c ^{2} t ^{2} (1v ^{2} /c ^{2} )
y’=y √1 –V ^{2} /C ^{2}
We have similar effect in Z direction to also because z direction also perpendicular
to the relative velocity. Then we have 

x’=xvt 
x=x’+vt’ t=t’+vx’/c ^{2} First order equation for x and t 

t’=tvx/c ^{2} 

y’=y √ 1v ^{2} /c ^{2} 
y=y’ √ 1v ^{2} /c ^{2} z=z’ √ 1v ^{2} /c ^{2} Second order equation for y and z 

z’=z √ 1v ^{2} /c ^{2} 

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 _{}_{}_{}_{} T _{1}  O’ 
A 

C 
T’ 

O 
T=0
C _{}_{}_{}_{} T _{1}
T=T _{1}
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 T _{1} the time interval is _{}_{}_{}_{} T _{1} . In the time interval the mass point travel the
distance C _{}_{}_{}_{} T _{1} the same time interval the origin of O’ shifted the distance V _{}_{}_{}_{} T _{1}
C T _{1} = V T _{1} + C T’
C _{}_{}_{}_{} T’ = C _{}_{}_{}_{} T _{1}  V _{}_{}_{}_{} T _{1} (1)
_{}_{}_{}_{} T’ = T _{1}  V/C _{}_{}_{}_{} T _{1}
X’ = X T _{1} V
Next we take ve X’ direction. The observer in the K frame need time interval T _{2} for the mass point reach the point C in the same time interval the origin
O’ shifted the distance VT _{2} from O
C  C _{}_{}_{}_{} T’O’
O .  OV _{}_{}_{}_{} T _{2}
.
From the three value we have the equation
C T _{2} = C T’ + V T _{2}
C _{}_{}_{}_{} T’ = C _{}_{}_{}_{} T _{2} + V _{}_{}_{}_{} T _{2} (2)
T’ = T _{2} + V/C T _{2}
x’ = x + V _{}_{}_{}_{} T _{2}
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
C ^{2} T ^{2} = C ^{2} T ^{2} +V ^{2} T ^{2}
C ^{2} T’ ^{2} = C ^{2} T ^{2} V ^{2} T ^{2}
Y’= Y √ 1v ^{2} /c ^{2}
In the same result we can arrive in the Z direction.
C ^{2} T’ ^{2} = C ^{2} T ^{2}  V ^{2} T ^{2}
Z’ = Z √ 1v ^{2} /c ^{2}
From the results (1) and (2) we have
(1) x (2)
C ^{2} T’ ^{2} = C ^{2} T _{1} T _{2}  V ^{2} T _{1} T _{2}
= C ^{2} _{}_{}_{}_{} T _{}_{}_{}_{} T (1V ^{2} /C ^{2}^{)}
C _{}_{}_{}_{} T’ = C √ _{}_{}_{}_{} T _{1} _{}_{}_{}_{} T _{2}
√ 1v ^{2} /c ^{2}
From the above calculation any one can verify following result by direct measurement of T’, T, T _{1} , T _{2} in the X, Y, X, Z direction
From above equations
_{}_{}_{}_{} T’= _{}_{}_{}_{} T √ 1V ^{2} /C ^{2} in the perpendicular direct. Y,Z.
_{}_{}_{}_{} T’= √ _{}_{}_{}_{} T _{1} _{}_{}_{}_{} T _{2} √ 1V ^{2} /C ^{2}
in the +ve, ve X direction.
T = √ T _{1} T _{2}
From the equation _{}_{}_{}_{} T = √ _{}_{}_{}_{} T _{1} _{}_{}_{}_{} T _{2} We have two condition (1) _{}_{}_{}_{} T _{1}
_{≠}_{≠}_{≠}_{≠} _{}_{}_{}_{} T _{2} , (2) _{}_{}_{}_{} T _{1} = _{}_{}_{}_{} T _{2} we derived above equation in first condition _{}_{}_{}_{} T _{1} _{≠}_{≠}_{≠}_{≠}
_{}_{}_{}_{} T _{2} 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.
_{}_{}_{}_{} T ^{2} =( _{}_{}_{}_{} T _{1} ) ^{2} = ( _{}_{}_{}_{} T _{2} ) ^{2}
whereT _{1} = _{}_{}_{}_{} T _{2}
use the condition in the equation we have
X’ = XVT
T’ = TVX/C ^{2}
Y’ = Y √ 1V ^{2} /C ^{2}
Z’ = Z √ 1V ^{2} /C ^{2}
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 X ^{’} = xvt
y ^{’} = y’ √ 1V ^{2} /C ^{2}
z ^{’} = z’ √ 1V ^{2} /C ^{2} t ^{’} = tvx/c2
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 motion equation.
For sound velocity Cs x’ = xvt
y ^{’} = y’ √ 1V ^{2} /C ^{2} s
z ^{’} =
z’ √ 1V ^{2} /C ^{2} s
t ^{’} = tvx/c ^{2} s
For particle velocity Cp x ^{’} = xvt
y’ = y’ √ 1V ^{2} /C ^{2} p
z ^{’} = z’
√ 1V ^{2} /C ^{2} p
t ^{’} = tvx/ c ^{2} p
we get Galilean trans for
X’ = xvt
Y ^{’} = y √ 1V ^{2} /C ^{2}
Z ^{’} = z √ 1V ^{2} /C ^{2} T ^{’} = tvx/c ^{2} We equate y’=y, z’=z with equal geometrical nature i.e. Cartesian coordinate in both frame. We have the condition.
X’ =(xvt)/ T ^{’} =(tvx/c ^{2} ) /
Y’ = y √ 1V ^{2} /C ^{2}
Z ^{’} = z √ 1V ^{2} /C ^{2}
Conclusion We can use our trans for motion equation x’=xvt, y’=y
√ 1V ^{2} /C ^{2} ,
t’=tvx/c ^{2} for all type of event’s velocity. The event velocity
“c” (light velocity) may be for electrodynamic’s and optics. For classical mechanics
z’=z √ 1V ^{2} /C ^{2} ,
“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’ = dxvdt dt ^{’} = dtv/c ^{2} dx
dy’ = die √ 1V ^{2} /C ^{2}
dz’ = dz √ 1V ^{2} /C ^{2} From the equation we can arrive the condition how relative velocity affect the event velocity.
Dx ^{’} /dt’= dxvdt/dtv/c ^{2} dx ;
dy’/dt ^{’} = dy √ 1V ^{2} /C ^{2} /dtvdx/c ^{2} ;
dz ^{’} /dt’= dz v √ 1V ^{2} /C ^{2} /dtvdx/c ^{2} ;
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, U _{2} are the components of the
same events velocity
If v=0 above equation describe inertial condition
“C” another state of motion.
√ U ^{2} _{x} +U ^{2} _{y} +U ^{2} _{z}
= C where √ U’ _{x} ^{2} +U’ _{y} ^{2} +U’ _{z} ^{2}
= C
If relative velocity V=O the event’s velocity C is invariant.
U _{x} =U ^{’} x
U _{y} =U ^{’} y ∴∴∴∴ U ^{2} _{x} +U ^{2} _{y} +U ^{2} _{z} = U ^{’}^{2} _{x} +U ^{’}^{2} _{y} +U ^{’}^{2} _{z}
U _{z} = U ^{’} _{z}
If the event occur in X direction only, we have U _{x} = U’ x = C other components are
=U ^{’} y = C all other components are
zero If the event occur in Y direction only U _{y}
zero. If the event occur in Z direction only we have U _{z} = 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 noninertial condition (see our argument no1) 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 coordinate system U ^{1} x =c\n, U ^{1} _{2} = 0, U ^{1} y =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 U _{x} = (c\n)±±±± (11\n ^{2} )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 noninertial 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, U _{z} =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} ^{’}^{2} _{x} +U ^{’}^{2} _{y} +U’ ^{2} _{z} =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 U _{x} U _{y} 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, CV, 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 noninertial 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 1 ^{s}^{t} 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’=xvt
y’ =y √√√√1v ^{2} /c ^{2}
z’=z √√√√1v ^{2} /c ^{2}
t ^{’} =tvx/c ^{2}
x, y, z, t are space time coordinate 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 spacetime coordinate or event velocity. When v=0 the geometrical nature is invariant in both frames. So the spacetime coordinate is invariant. When v>0, the geometrical nature is variant with respect to the velocity v. The spacetime coordinate 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 spacetime coordinate relation between the two frames by our transformation 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 coordinate 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 x ^{1} and y ^{1} direction and found it is equal to the calculated value. _{}_{}_{}_{} x ^{’} = _{}_{}_{}_{} xV _{}_{}_{}_{} t in X direction
_{}_{}_{}_{} y ^{’} = _{}_{}_{}_{} y _{√}_{√}_{√}_{√}_{1}_{}_{V} ^{2} /c ^{2} 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 t _{1} =0, t _{2} =1, t _{3} =2, t _{4} =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} =X _{1} vt = 84 = 4 Cm. X’ _{2} =X _{2} +vt = 8+4 = 12 Cm.
Y’=y _{√}_{√}_{√}_{√} 1v ^{2} /c2= 8 11 ^{2} /2 ^{2} =6.9Cm. Above calculated value is Coincide the measurement value X’ _{1} =4Cm, X _{1} = 8Cm, X’ _{2} =12Cm, X _{2} =8Cm. Y’ = 6.9cm, y=8cm
In this same way these two fig.
we can
compare the space coordinate between two front from
_{}_{}_{}_{} x _{1}_{’} ^{=} 
1cm 
_{}_{}_{}_{} 
x 
_{}_{}_{}_{} x _{2}_{’} ^{=} 
1cm 
_{}_{}_{}_{} 
x 
_{}_{}_{}_{} x _{3}_{’} ^{=} 
1cm 
_{}_{}_{}_{} 
x 
_{}_{}_{}_{} x _{4}_{’} ^{=} 
3cm 
_{}_{}_{}_{} 
x 
_{}_{}_{}_{} x _{5}_{’} ^{=} 
3cm 
_{}_{}_{}_{} 
x 
_{}_{}_{}_{} x _{6}_{’} ^{=} 
3cm 
_{}_{}_{}_{} 
x 
_{}_{}_{}_{} y _{1}_{’} ^{=} 1.72cm 
_{}_{}_{}_{} 
y 

y _{2}_{’} ^{=} 1.72cm 
_{}_{}_{}_{} 
y 
_{1}
_{2}
_{3}
_{4}
_{5}
_{6}
_{1}
_{2}
^{=}
^{=}
^{=}
^{=}
^{=}
^{=}
^{=}
^{=}
2cm 
_{}_{}_{}_{} x ^{1} _{=} _{}_{}_{}_{} xv _{}_{}_{}_{} t= 21=1cm 
2cm 
” 
2cm 
” 
2cm 
_{}_{}_{}_{} x ^{1} _{=} _{}_{}_{}_{} xv _{}_{}_{}_{} t= 2+1=3cm 
2cm 
” 
2cm 
” 
2cm 
_{}_{}_{}_{} y ^{1}^{=} _{}_{}_{}_{} y _{√}_{√}_{√}_{√} 1v ^{2} /c ^{2} =1.7 
2cm 
” 
_{}_{}_{}_{} y _{3}_{’} ^{=} 1.72cm
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
To find
_{}_{}_{}_{} y _{3} ^{=} 2cm the time relation we divide
” above space coordinate
out
by
wave
the geometrical effect. So the factor (1v/c), (1+v/c), _{√}_{√}_{√}_{√}_{1}_{}_{v} ^{2} /c ^{2} are geometrical effect in the x and y direction in noninertial 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 A ^{1} .B ^{1} . The geometrical change disappear from the above example we come to know that the Newton’s addition of velocity c+v,cv 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’=xvt 
x=x’+vt ^{’} 
y ^{’} =y √√√√1v ^{2} /c ^{2} 
y=y √√√√1v ^{2} /c ^{2} 
z ^{’} =z √√√√1v ^{2} /c ^{2} t’=tvx/c ^{2} 
z=z √√√√1v ^{2} /c ^{2} t=t ^{’} +vx/c ^{2} 
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(1v/c) put t=1/v
therefore v ^{’} = v(1+v/c), v= v’(1v/c) The above two equation describes frequency relation between two state of motion with different geometrical nature. The factor (1+v/c), (1v/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= v _{1} k(1v/c) put the value of v’ in the above equation we have
_{}_{}_{}_{} t= _{}_{}_{}_{} t’(1+v/c)
_{}_{}_{}_{} t’=1/v ^{’}
v = v k ^{2} (1v ^{2} /c ^{2} )
ie.,
So the equation are v = v ^{1} (1 v/c)/
k = 1/
_{√}_{√}_{√}_{√} 1 v ^{2} /c ^{2}
√√√√1 v ^{2} /c ^{2}
v ‘ = v(1+ v/c)/ _{√}_{√}_{√}_{√}_{1}_{} v ^{2} /c ^{2} 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
v _{1} = v’(1 v/c)/ _{√}_{√}_{√}_{√}_{1}_{} v ^{2} /c ^{2}
v _{2} = v’(1+ v/c)/ _{√}_{√}_{√}_{√}_{1}_{} v ^{2} /c ^{2} If we find mean frequency the first order effect is removed remaining second order effect only exit.
vm = (v _{1} + v _{2} ) 1/2 = v’ /
_{√}_{√}_{√}_{√}_{1}_{} v ^{2} /c ^{2}
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:
v _{m}  v ^{’} = v’/
= v ^{’}  v ^{’} /
_{√}_{√}_{√}_{√}_{1}_{} v ^{2} /c ^{2}
_{√}_{√}_{√}_{√}_{1}_{} v ^{2} /c ^{2}
 v’
√√√√1v ^{2} /c ^{2}
v _{m}  v ^{’} / v _{m}
For Sound waves ‘C’ is sound Velocity
= 1 _{√}_{√}_{√}_{√} 1 v ^{2} /c ^{2} =1/2 v ^{2} /c ^{2}
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 (m _{1} m _{2} ) 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 fig1
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 4 _{1} and 4 _{2} as shown in the fig 4 _{1} = 4 _{2} . 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 4 _{1}
and 4 _{2} direction and the mean (v _{1} + v _{2} ) /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, m _{1} and m _{2} are placed with an angle 4 _{1} ‘ 4 _{2} ‘ which is equal to
inertial condition angle 4 _{1} , 4 _{2} 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 MADRAS1, (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 31, 371, 151, 15149. _{}_{}_{}_{} SHANTHI NARAYAN, J.N.KAPUR A TEXT BOOK OF VECTOR CALCULUS 1994 S.CHAND COMPANY LTD 7788, 255285. _{}_{}_{}_{} 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 VOLUME1 1995, VOLUME2 NAROSA PUBLISHING HOUSE NEWDELHI 1377 1395, 107130, 182222. _{}_{}_{}_{} 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 199192 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 759. _{}_{}_{}_{} S.P.STELKOV MECHANICS 1978 MIR PUBLISHER MOSCOW 23  51, 513  554. _{}_{}_{}_{} I.V.SAVELUEW FUNDAMENTALS OF THEORETICAL PHYSICS VOLUME1, VOLUME2 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 VOLUME1, VOLUME2 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 VOLUME2 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
Bien plus que des documents.
Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.
Annulez à tout moment.