Relativistic Mechanics Based on Variable Speed of Light

Di HUA
Stanford University (ret.) Russian Academy of Astronautics
Nanshagou 5-2-3, Xicheng District, Beijing 100045, PRC
huaxiaowu@gmail.com
Abstract
Many mistakes in Einsteins theory of relativity are revealed. Both Einsteins postulate of
constant speed of light and Lorentzs postulate of length-contraction are invalid. Einsteins Lorentz
transformation cannot provide invariance for Maxwells electromagnetic field equations, nor for the
electromagnetic wave equations. His theory cannot explain the Doppler effect and the aberration. His
principle of mass-energy equivalence fails with regard to moving bodies. He has made many
mathematical errors in the development of his relativistic mechanics. His formulas of moving mass and
kinetic energy are inconsistent with each other. His explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury is
a fabrication. Based solely on the principle of relativity, without any additional postulate, the author
develops a new theory of relativity with a new relativistic mechanics. The new theory proves: Time-
synchronism is universal; Speed of light is variable and is not the limit of speed; The variable speed of
light causes the Doppler effect and the aberration; The principle of mass-energy equivalence can be
precisely extended to moving bodies; Photon has static mass; etc. The new theory can precisely and
unconditionally prove the equivalence between gravitational mass and inertial mass, demonstrate a
comprehensive correspondence between gravitational and inertial fields, and make the special and the
general relativity theories consistent with each other. The new relativistic mechanics can precisely
calculate the angular deviation of light caused by the suns gravity, the red shift of the suns light, the
perihelion motion of Mercury and, thus, give the gravity a mechanical interpretation instead of
Einsteins geometrical one.
1 Einsteins Theory of Relativity Was Wrong at Its Birth
Einstein published his paper On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies in 1905. That year is popularly known as the
relativity theorys birth-year. In that paper Einstein tried for the first time to deduce his Lorentz Transformation. We will show
Einsteins errors in his study. For easier reference to Einsteins original text, we will follow his notations, for example, the speed of
light is V , not c .
Einstein introduces two systems of reference ) , , , ( k and ) , , , ( t z y x K with their axes parallel to each other
respectively. The k -system moves translationally and uniformly at velocity in the positive direction of the
K
-systems
X
-
axis. Einstein also sets a mathematical model with a ray traveling forth and back between a source of light and a reflector. The
source is fixed at the
K
-systems origin and the reflector is moving with the k -system. With this model, which was incorrectly
used by him (see below), he obtains ) ( x
V
t a

2 2

where
a
is a function ( ) and he gets:
). )( ( x
V
t

2 2

(1)
He claims that if we substitute for x its value, we obtain:
) ( ) ( x
V
t
2

, where
2 2
1
1
V

.
Then he proves ( ) must equal 1 and obtains: ) ( x
V
t
2

.
Actually, however, by placing vt x x into (1), he should have obtained:
) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( x
V
t x
V
t
V
V
t x
V
t
2
2
2 2 2
2
2 2

1
]
1

1
]
1

.
1
Because of 1 ) ( , there ought to be: ) ( x
V
t
2
2

. (2)
It is
2
, not . Einstein has made an algebraic error!
More sadly, Einstein has misused his Source-Ray-Reflector model. Lets analyze his study carefully. At the beginning
time
0
, the source emits a ray in the positive direction of the
X
-axis. At the time
1
, the ray catches up with the moving away
reflector and is instantly reflected back toward the source. At the time
2
, the reflected ray arrives back at the source. With this
model, Einstein writes: ( )
1 2 0
2
1
+ . (3)
Einstein applies his postulate of the constant speed of light to this model. At the beginning time t
0
, when the ray is at
the
K
-systems origin ( 0 x ), he assigns ) , , , ( t 0 0 0 for
0
in the equation (3). At the time
1
, when the ray reaches the
reflector, he writes
,
_

V
x
t x , , , 0 0 for
1
, which means the reflector is at the
K
-systems x and the ray departing
from 0 x with velocity V spends time

V
x
to reach the reflector at x x . He violates his postulate of the
constant speed of light, according to which the light must have spent time
V
x
to reach the reflector at x so that he ought to
have
V
x
t
V
x
+

+
0 1
.
Next, he writes
,
_

V
x
V
x
t , , , 0 0 0 for
2
, which means the reflected ray with velocity + V spends
time
+

V
x
to return from x to the source of light at the
K
-systems origin ( 0 x ). He again violates his postulate of
constant V , according to which there must be
V
x
V
x
t
V
x
+

+
1 2
. His
+

V
x
assumes the velocity of the
reflected ray to be v V + , which not only violates his postulate of constant V but also means that the reflector (the source of
the reflected ray) is moving toward (not away from) the original source of light!
Einsteins misuse of his model can be ascertained by placing his expressions of
2 1 0
, , into his equation (3):
( )
1
2 2
2 0
2
1
2
1

+
1
]
1

,
_

+ + + x
V
V
t
V
x
V
x
t t ,
because his

+
V
x
t
1
. With this violation of his equation (3), however, Einstein insists on placing his erroneous
2 1 0
, , expressions into (3) and obtains:
( )

,
_

+
1
]
1

,
_

+ +

V
x
t x
V
x
V
x
t t , , , , , , , , , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2
1
.
Next, he writes, if x is chosen infinitesimally small, then
t V x t V V

,
_

+
+

1 1 1
2
1
or 0
2 2

t V x

.
From this partial differential equation, he obtains his
,
_

x
V
t a
2 2

.
Strictly adhering to his constant V postulate, there should be t
0
,
V
x
t

+
1
,
V
x
V
x
t

+

+
2
, and they
satisfy (3): ( ) +
2 0
2
1

1
2
1

+
1
]
1

,
_

+ +
V
x
t
V
x
V
x
t t .
2
Correspondingly, there must be: ( )

,
_

+
1
]
1

,
_

+ +
V
x
t x
V
x
V
x
t t , 0 , 0 , , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0
2
1
.
Now, if x is chosen infinitesimally small, we obtain:
t V x t V V

,
_

+
1 1 1
2
1
or 0

or

constant.
The constant regardless of x signifies a universal time-synchronism!
However, the time-synchronism t and the postulate of V constant together would lead to the following kinematic
equations of a spherical wave of light in the two reference systems:
K
-system:
2 2 2 2 2
t V z y x + + and k -system:
2 2 2 2 2
V + +
2 2
t V
which in turn lead to a trivial solution:
2 2 2 2 2 2
+ + + + z y x or z y x , , , without any relative
motion between the two reference systems. Thus, Einsteins V =constant postulate becomes a senseless triviality. Because, of
course, without the relative motion ( 0 ) the speed of light always remains constant.
If we reject the constant V postulate, then there must be: t
0
,

+
V
x
t
1
and

+
V
x
V
x
t
2
.
Because, the k -systems reflector is moving away from the
K
-systems source of light at velocity , so the ray from the
source has speed V with regard to the moving reflector. The moving reflector is the source of the reflected ray, so the
reflected rays speed is V with regard to the original source of light which is fixed in the
K
-system. Our
2 1 0
, ,
expressions satisfy the equation (3): ( )
1 2 0
2
1
2
1

+
1
]
1

,
_

+ + +
V
x
t
V
x
V
x
t t . Correspondingly,
( )

,
_

+
1
]
1

,
_

+ +

V
x
t x
V
x
V
x
t t , , , , , , , , , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2
1
.
Now, if x is chosen infinitesimally small, we obtain:
t V x t V V

,
_

1 1 1
2
1
or 0

or

constant.
Again, we come to the universal time-synchronism. Therefore, the conclusions can only be: The speed of light is not constant
due to the relative motion between a source of light and a reflector; the time-synchronism is universal.
2 Lorentz Transformation vs Galilean Transformation
In his 1907 paper On the Relativity Principle and the Conclusions Drawn from It, Einstein has given up his Source-
Ray-Reflector model (Had he realized his errors in 1905?). He turned to deduce his Lorentz Transformation by maintaining
invariance of spherical waves kinematic equation between two relatively moving reference systems. For easier reference to
Einsteins original text, we will follow his notations, for example, the speed of light is c , not V .
Suppose two reference systems ) , , , ( t z y x S and ) , , , ( t z y x S with their axses parallel to each other respectively.
The S -system moves translationally and uniformly at velocity in the positive direction of the S -systems
X
-axis. A
spherical wave of light is radiated at velocity c from a source fixed to the S -systems origin. In the S -system, the sperical
waves kinematic equation is:
2 2 2 2 2
t c z y x + + . (4)
According to the relativity principles requirement of invariance, the spherical waves kinematic equation in the S -system must
be:
2 2 2 2 2
t c z y x + + . (4)
2.1. Einsteins Lorentz Transformation.
Einstein tries to deduce a group of transformation equations capable of maintaining invariance between (4) and (4). This
can be done as follows:
From (4)
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
1 1 t c c z y x c ) ( ) )( ( + +
or
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2
2
2
1 t v t c z y c x
c
x + + ) )( ( ) (

or ( ) ( )
2
2
2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 1 2 x
c
xt t c z y c t xt x

+ + + + ) (
3
or
( )
2
2
2
2 2
2 2 2
2 2
1
1
1
1
) ( x
c
t c
c
z y t x
c

+ +

or ( ) [ ]
2
2
2 2 2 2 2
) ( x
c
t c z y t x

+ + , where
2 2
1
1
c

. (5)
Comparing (5) with (4) and taking into consideration y y and
z z for a relative motion along the
X
-axis, the
following group of transformation equations can be obtained:
( ) t x x
y y
z z (6)
) ( x
c
t t
2

c c
The above group of transformation equations is commonly known as the Lorentz Transformation. But, lets call it Einstein-
Lorentz Transformation (E-L Transformation) in order to stress that it contains Einsteins c c postulate and Lorentzs
( ) t x x
postulate.
Einstein claims that he has succeded in proving his E-L Transformation by use of only two principles: the relativity principle
and the c c principle. He upgrades his c c from a postulate to a principle. In fact, his c c violates the relativity
principle (See Appendix A1) and cannot be entitled as a principle just because his E-L Transformation can mathematically
provide the invariance for the spherical wave equation. Moreover, Einstein avoids mentioning that Lorentzs ( ) t x x
postulate is indispensable for him to deduce his E-L Transformation (See Appendix A2 and A3).
2.2. Galilean Transformation.
Based on the classical Galilean t t and t x x , we can obtain from (4):

2 2 2 2 2
t c z y t x + + ) ( . (7)
(7)-(4) gives:
2 2 2 2 2 2
2 t c t c xt t
or ) ( x
t c c
c c
2 2
2
2 2
2 1

+ . (8)
So, the transformation equation for the speed of light is:
x
t c c
c c
2 2
2
2 1

+
. (9)
The following group of transformation equations can invariantly transform (4) into (4):
t x x
y y
z z (10)
t t

x
t c c
c c
2 2
2
2 1

+
This indicates that the classical Galilean Transformation can also transform the spherical waves equation invariantly
between the two relatively moving systems of reference. Einstein has no right to arbitrarily claim his E-L Transformation
only legitimate one. Contrary to it, we will prove that, in the physics domain, his c c based E-L Transformation (6) is
misleading while our t t based Galilean Transformation (10) is correct (See3,4,5,6,7). The principle of
relativity in physics, which governs physical laws, involves more than just the mathematical invariance.
2.3. The Time-Synchronism Comes Directly from the Principle of Relativity.
We can prove the time-synchronism t t directly from the principle of relativity.
Suppose the two systems origins O and O are initially overlapping. During a period of time t (by the S -clock), an
observer in the S -system sees the S -systems origin O moving through a distance of O O in the positive direction of the
X
-axis. The S -observer calculates the S -systems velocity as
t
O O
. With regard to the same event, another obserevr
in the S -system finds the S -systems origin O moving through a distance of O O in the negative direction of the
X -axis
4
during a period of time t (by the S -clock). The S -observer calculates the S -systems velocity as
t
O O

.
According to the principle of relativity, there must be and O O O O so that t
O O O O
t

.The
universal time-sychronism t t is not a postulate but a principle based on the principle of relativity.
2.4. Questioning Einsteins Time-Transformation Equation.
Generally speaking, in case of a relative motion with velocity
r
in an arbitrary direction r etween the S and the S
systems, Einsteins time-transformation equation ) ( x
c
t t
2

can be written as:

) ( r
c
t t
r
r r
2

, where
2 2
1
1
c v
r
r

.
The S -systems relative motion in the r -direction can be resolved into three independent relative motions along the S -
systems Z Y X , , axes respectively. To make it simple, lets analyze a two-dimensional case in the
Y X
plane, where
2 2 2
y x r
+ and
2 2 2
y x r + .
For a motion along the S -systems
X
-axis, Einsteins time-transformation is:
) ( x
c
t t
x
x x
2

, where
2 2
1
1
c
x
x

.
5
For an additional motion along the S -systems
Y -axis, the time-transformation is:

) ( y
c
t t
y
x y y
2

, where
2 2
1
1
c
y
y

.
Since a superposition of these two motions is equivalent to a single relative motion in the S -systems r -direction, so the
resultant time
y
t
must be the same time
r
t directly transformed from the S -systems time t . Hence, there must be
r y
t t
.
Lets analyze a special case with

45 so that
2
r
y x

,
2
r
y x
,
2
r
y x
r
y x

and
2
2 2
1 1
2
2 1
1
r
r
y x
c

. The resultant time is:
1
]
1

,
_

y
c
v
x
c
t t
y
x
x y y
2 2

( )
r
c
t
r
r r r
2 2 2 2
1 1 2
1
1 1
1
1 1
2

1
1
]
1

+
+
+

r
t
.
Obviously, Einsteins time-transformation is wrong. Only when 0
r
and 1
r
, which is a meaningless trivial case
without relative motion, then t t t
r y

.
In contrast, the velocity-transformation in our t t based Galilean Transformation (10) is true. Indeed, for a motion in the
r -direction, our velocity-transformation equation is:
) ( r
t c c
c c
r r
r
2 2
2
2 2
2 1

+ or
t
r
c c
r
r r

2
2 2 2
+ .
For a motion along the S -systems
X
-axis, we have
t
x
c c
x
x x

2
2 2 2
+ . For an additional motion along the
S -systems
Y -axis, we have
t
y
c c
y
y x y

2
2 2 2
+ . Since cos r x , cos
r x
, sin r y ,
sin
r y
, so
2 2 2
r y x
+ and r y x
r y x
+ . Therefore, we have:
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2
r
r
r
y
y
x
x y
c
t
r
c
t
y
t
x
c c + + +

.
The resultant velocity
y
c
from a superposition of the two motions is exactly the velocity
r
c directly transformed from the S -
systems velocity c . Obviously, the t t and t x x based Galilean Transformation (10) is correct.
2.5. Three-dimensional Transformation of Velocity and Time.
6
Lets point out that cos
ct
x
, where

is the angle between the velocity of light c

and the velocity of relative motion

.
Suppose the two systems origins O and O are initially overlapping. At the moment 0 t , the S -system starts moving
at velocity in the ( ) X X direction and a ray departs from O at velocity c with an angle

between c

and

. At the
moment of t t , the ray arrives at the S -systems ( ) y x F , so that ct OF . Meantime, the distance between O and O
becomes t . It can be seen from the figure below that
ct
x
cos .
Therefore, the velocity-transformation formula in (10) can be expressed as:

cos
c c
c c 2 1
2
2
+
. (10)
Actually, this is the parallelogram rule of addition of two vectorial velocities c

and

, which can provide invariance for 3-

dimensional spherical wave. If 0 , then c c ; if

, then + c c . These are the traditional one-
dimentional Galilean velocity-transformation.
Similarly, the time-transformation formula ) ( x
c
t
2
1

in the E-L Transformation (6) can be expressed as:
) cos (

c
t t 1 . (6)
2.6. Einsteins Time-Asychronism Is Absurd Rather Than Paradoxical.
Suppose a very long train ( S -system) moves very fast in the
X
-direction. A and B sit at the trains tail and front
respectively. Moving together, they are relatively static with regard to each other and their time-readings by S -clocks must
always be synchronized:
B A
t t . C, who stands on the ground ( S -system) and watches A and B moving away together,
shows his time-reading
C
t by S -clock.
Einsteins time-transformation gives ) (
A C A
x
c
t t
2

and ) (
B C B
x
c
t t
2

.
Because of
B A
x x , however, C deems
B A
t t , which is a real absurdity rather than a paradox.
f the train moves laterally with regard to C so that ) cos (
A C A
c
t t

1 and ) cos (
B C B
c
t t

1
according to (6), then C again deems
B A
t t due to
B A
, which remains absurd.
2.5. Speed Is Limitless.
E-L Transformation (6) demands c < to avoid becoming infinite or imaginary. However, not only a wave of light
can expand in a spherical form (in this case c is the speed of light), but also a sound wave or even a soap bubble can expand in a
spherical form (in these cases c is the speed of either the sound waves propagation or the soap bubbles expansion). Kinematic
equations (4) and (4) remain true. The two postulates c c and ) ( vt x x would still givethe E-L Transformation
(6). Would the speed of the sound waves propagation or the soap bubbles expansion be the limit of speed?
To conclude, the mathematical compliance with the relativity principle is not enough to judge which transformation
7
is physically true. Our analysis invalidates c c and ) ( vt x x based E-L Transformation (6) but justifies t t
and vt x x based Galilean Transformation (10). Below, we will prove this conclusion in the physics domain.
3 Transformation of Maxwells Electromagnetic Field Equations
Invariant transformation of Maxwells electromagnetic field equations was considered by Einstein as a critical and successful
test to justify his E-L Transformation. However, we will prove that the E-L Transformation cannot invariantly transform
Maxwells field equations.
In a vacuum without free electric charge and conduction current, Maxwells field equations are:
, 0

z
E
y
E
x
E
z
y
x
0

z
H
y
H
x
H
z
y
x
,
z
H
y
H
t
E
y
z x

y
E
z
E
t
H
z
y
x

,
x
H
z
H
t
E
z x
y

z
E
x
E
t
H
x z
y

(11)
,
y
H
x
H
t
E
x
y
z

x
E
y
E
t
H
y
x z

z y x
E E E , ,
are components of the electric fields intensity (unit:
1 3
I LMT
),
z y x
H H H , ,
are components of magnetic
fields intensity (unit:
I L
1
),

is the magnetic permeability constant of vacuum (unit:

2 2
I LMT
), is the dielectric
constant of vacuum (unit:
2 4 1 3
I T M L

).
Maxwells electromagnetic field equations do not describe electromagnetic waves propagation and have nothing to do with
the speed of light , although
2
1
c
by value allows us to write (11) as:
, 0

z
E
y
E
x
E
z
y
x
0

z
H
y
H
x
H
z
y
x
c
1
,

,
_

z
H
y
H
t
E
y
z x

,
_

y
E
z
E
t
H
c
z
y
x

1
,
1

,
_

x
H
z
H
t
E
c
z x
y

,
_

z
E
x
E
t
H
c
x z
y

1
,
1

,
_

y
H
x
H
t
E
c
x
y
z

,
_

x
E
y
E
t
H
c
y
x z

1
Here, c is just a constant coefficient and not subject to transformation.
In his 1905 and 1907 papers, however, Einstein ignored

and

, and erroneously wrote:

,
1
z
H
y
H
t
E
c
y
z x

y
E
z
E
t
H
c
z
y
x

1
,
1
x
H
z
H
t
E
c
z x
y

z
E
x
E
t
H
c
x z
y

1
(12)
,
1
y
H
x
H
t
E
c
x
y
z

x
E
y
E
t
H
c
y
x z

1
The incompatibility of units between two sides of equations in (12) reveals that Einsteins Maxwells field equations (12) are
incorrect. Einsteins (12) misleads readers and himself to believe that c in the field equations is not a constant coefficient but the
real speed of light subject to transformation. Worse still, among Maxwells eight equations (11) Einstein omitted the first two,
which describe the zero-divergence of electric and magnetic field intensities.
Einstein claims that his E-L Transformation (6) is able to invariantly transform his (12) from the S -system into the S -
system as follows:
8
,
1
z
H
y
H
t
E
c
y
z x

y
E
z
E
t
H
c
z
y
x

1
,
1
x
H
z
H
t
E
c
z x
y

z
E
x
E
t
H
c
x z
y

1
(12)
,
1
y
H
x
H
t
E
c
x
y
z

x
E
y
E
t
H
c
y
x z

1
where ,
x x
E E

x x
H H
), (
z y y
H
c
E E


) (
x y y
E
c
H H

+
(13)
) (
y z z
H
c
E E

+
, ) (
y z z
E
c
H H


The incompatibility of units in (12) reappears in (13). Electric field intensity and magnetic field intensity have different units.
How can their components be added to or subtracted from each other?
Worst of all, Einsteins E-L Transformation (6) cannot even invariantly transform his erroneus version of Maxwells
equations (12) into (12) ! In fact, from his E-L Transformation (6) we have:
,

x
x

, 1

y
y
, 1

z
z
,

t
t
.
2
c
v
x
t

(14)
Rewriting 0

z
E
y
E
x
E
z
y
x
as
z
E
c y
E
c x
E
c
z
y
x

and placing it into the first left-side equation of
(12), we get: ) ( ) (
z
E
c z
H
y
E
c y
H
x
E
c t
E
c
z
y y
z x x

1
.
By use of (14), the following process of deduction can be done:

,
_

,
_

z y y z
x x
E
c
H
z z
z
E
c
H
y y
y
t
E
x
t
c t
E
t
t
c
1

,
_

,
_

z y y z
x
E
c
H
z
E
c
H
y t
E
c c

) (
2
2
1
1
]
1

,
_

1
]
1

,
_

z y y z
x
E
c
H
z
E
c
H
y t
E
c

1
.
Comparing the above equation with the first left-side equation of (12), we have:

x x
E E
, ) (
z y y
E
c
H H

+
, ) (
y z z
E
c
H H


. (15)
Similarly, rewriting 0

z
H
y
H
x
H
z
y
x
as
z
H
c y
H
c x
H
c
z
y
x

and placing it into the first right-side
equation of (12), we get
1
]
1

,
_

1
]
1

,
_

y z z y
x
H
c
v
E
y
H
c
E
z t
H
c

1
.
Comparing the above equation with the first right-side equation in (12), we have:
x x
H H
, ) (
z y y
H
c
E E


, ) (
y z z
H
c
E E

+
. (16)
The combination of (15) and (16) constitutes (13), which would seem to validate Einsteins claim. No hurry, it is not so!
Einsteins E-L Transformation (6) cannot invariantly transform his other four equations from (12) into (12). For example,
the second left-side equation in (12) can be written as
z
H
x
H
t
E
c
x z
y

1
.
Applying (14) and (13) to it, we have
z
H
z
z
t
H
x
t
t
E
t
t
c
x z
y

1
or
z
H
t
H
c t
E
c
x z
y

,
9
i.e.,
z
H
H
c
E
t c
x
z y

1
]
1

,
_

1
or
z
H
t
E
c
x
y

1
.
Compared with the second left-side equation of (12), the above equation lacks a term
x
H
z


.
Lets try another way. The third right-side equation in (12) can be written as
x
E
c y
E
c t
H
c
y
x z

2
.
Placing it into the second left-side equation of (12), we get:
y
E
c x
E
c x
H
z
H
t
H
c t
E
c
x
y
z x z
y

2
1
y
E
c
E
c
H
x z
H
H
c
E
t c
x
y z
x
z y

,
_

,
_

1
y
E
y
y
c
E
c
H
x x
x
z
H
z
z
H
c
E
t t
t
c
x
y z
x
z y

,
_

,
_

1
y
E
c
E
c
H
x z
H
H
c
E
t c
y z
x
z y

1
]
1

,
_

1
]
1

,
_

1
.
Einsteins (13) leads the above equation to
y
E
c x
H
z
H
t
E
c
x z x
y

1
.
Compared with the second left-side equation in (12), the above equation has an extra term
y
E
c
x

. The E-L Transformation
fails again!
Similar failures may be found with regard to the rest three equations in (12). It is important to note that the E-L
Transformation (6) can only satisfy the two equations of
t
E
x

and
t
H
x

, which are longitudinal along the

X
-direction
of the relative motion, but cannot invariantly transform other four transverse equations of
t
E
y

,
t
E
z

,
t
H
y

,
t
H
z

.
Without thoroughly examining all equations, Einstein hastily declares that his E-L Transformation (6) can invariantly transform
his erroneous version of Maxwells electromagnetic field equations (12) into (12).
Moreover, the E-L Transformation (6) cannot invariantly transform the first two Maxwells equations
0

z
E
y
E
x
E
z
y
x
and 0

z
H
y
H
x
H
z
y
x
, which were omitted by Einstein.
For example, from his (13) we have: ) (
z y y
H
c
E E

and ) (
y z z
H
c
E E

+
or
z
y
y
H
c
E
E

and
y
z
z
H
c
E
E

so that 0

z
E
y
E
x
E
z
y
x
can be written as:
0

,
_

,
_

y
z
z
y
x
H
c
E
z z
z
H
c
E
y y
y
x
E
x
x

.
Due to Einsteins
x x
E E ,

x
x
, 1

y
y
, 1

z
z
, we have:
0
1

+


+


+


) ( ) (
z
H
y
H
c z
E
y
E
x
E
y
z z
y
x

10
or 0
2

,
_

+


+


+


z
H
y
H
c z
E
y
E
x
E
y
z z
y
x

.
The first left-side equation in Einsteins (12) gives
z
H
y
H
t
E
c
y
z x

1
. Therefore, we have:
0
2
2

+


+


+


t
E
c z
E
y
E
x
E
x z
y
x

.
From (6):

t
t
,
2
c x
t

x
x
, so
x
c
x
c
t
t


2 2

. From (13):
x x
E E , so
x
E
t
E
c
x x

2
2

or 0
2
2

+


t
E
c x
E
x x

.
Finally, we get: 0


+


z
E
y
E
z
y
not 0


+


+


z
E
y
E
x
E
z
y
x
.
The E-L Transformation also cannot invariantly transform 0

z
H
y
H
x
H
z
y
x
to 0


+


+


z
H
y
H
x
H
z
y
x
.
In contrast, the t t and t x x based Galilean Transformation (10) can invariantly transform Maxwells electro-
magnetic field equations. Indeed, from (10):
1

x
x
, 1

y
y
, 1

z
z
, 1

t
t
. (17)
Placing (17) into (11), we directly receive:
0


+


+


z
E
y
E
x
E
z
y
x
, 0


+


+


z
H
y
H
x
H
z
y
x

z
H
y
H
t
E
y
z x

,
y
E
z
E
t
H
z
y
x

x
H
z
H
t
E
z x
y

,
z
E
x
E
t
H
x z
y

(11)

y
H
x
H
t
E
x
y
z

,
x
E
y
E
t
H
y
x z

where
x x
E E ,
y y
E E
,
z z
E E ,
x x
H H ,
y y
H H
,
z z
H H .
It is reasonable that the relative motion between two reference systems has no influence on the electromagnetic components
in (11) and (11), because Maxwells field equations represent the relationship of mutual induction between electric and magnetic
fields. Field equations are not wave equations and have nothing to do with the velocity c of electromagnetic waves propagation.
They do involve constant coefficients and

. But, they do not contain any velocity factor subject to transformation between
two relatively moving systems of reference, although
2
1
c
by value. So, the components of electromagnetic fields
intensities remain unchanged during the transformation.
4 Transformation of Electromagnetic Wave Equations
It is well known that the electromagnetic wave equations can easily be deduced from Maxwells field equantions (11). In
the
X
-direction, for example, the second order partial derivations of (11) give:
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
z
E
y
E
x
E
t
E
c
x x x x

,
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
z
H
y
H
x
H
t
H
c
x x x x

. (18)
In vectorial form, the 3-dimensional electromagnetic wave equations can be concisely expressed as:
E
t
E
c

2
2
2
1
and H
t
H
c

2
2
2
1
, where
2
2
2
2
2
2
z y x

. (19)
(19) represents a spherical wave radiated at velocity c from a source fixed to the S -systems origin and c is measured in the
11
S -system. The relativity principle demands the wave equations be invariant in the S -system:

E
t
E
c

2
2
2
1
and
H
t
H
c

2
2
2
1
(19)
where c
is measured in the S
-system, in which the source of radiation is moving at velocity

in the negative direction of

the
X -axis.
E-L Transformation (6) cannot invariantly transform the wave equations. In fact, in the
X
-direction, Einsteins (14) gives

x
x

and

t
t

, i.e.,
2
2
2

x
x

and
2
2
2

t
t

. Taking into consideration of Einsteins c c , we get
from (18):
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
z
E
y
E
x
E
t
E
c
x x x x

,
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
z
H
y
H
x
H
t
H
c
x x x x

.
According to Einsteins (13),
x x
E E and
x x
H H . No invariance can be realized unless there is no relative motion (the
trivial 1 and 0 ). Similarly, for wave equations in the
Y
- direction and the
Z
-direction, Einsteins (14) and (13)
cannot realize invariant transformation either.
Our transformation (10) can provide the invariance for the wave equations. Indeed, applying (10) and (17) to (19) in the
S -system, in which the source of radiation moves at velocity , and taking
E E


and
H H


into account, we get:
E
t
E
c c
c

+
2
2
2
2
2
2 1
1
) cos (

and
H
t
H
c c
c

+
2
2
2
2
2
2 1
1
) cos (

. (19)
In the S -system, in which the source of radiation is static ( 0 ), (19) becomes:
E
t
E
c

2
2
2
1
and H
t
H
c

2
2
2
1
.
Exactly, they are the electromagnetic wave equations (19).
Only the velocity of electromagnetic waves propagation is influenced by the relative motion whereas the electromagnetic
fields intensities remain unchanged (
E E


and
H H


) in spite of the relative motion. (19) is the general vectorial form
of spherical electromagnetic wave equations in the S -system, in which the source of radiation is moving. (19) is the special case
for the static source ( 0 ) in the S -system., in which the waves velocity c is isotropic. In the S -system, however, the
waves velocity c is anisotropic because the source of radiation moves in the negative direction of the
X -axis. The velocity
c depends on the angle

between c

and

. In the positive direction of the

X -axis ( ) 0 , the velocity is
c c ; in the negative direction of the
X -axis ( ) , the velocity is + c c .
5 Transformation of Frequency and Wavelength
The Doppler Effect and the Red Shift
Based on his E-L Transformation, Einstein presents a formula for the transformation of electro- magnetic waves frequency:
) cos (

c
1 . (20)
is the frequency of radiation from a source fixed in the S -system, is the frequency sensed by a receiver moving together
with the S -system at velocity in relation to the source,

is the angle between the direction of relative motion and the

direction of radiation.
The S -systems source spends time t to send n waves so that the frequency is
t
n
. The S -systems receiver spends
time t to receive the same n waves so that the frequency is
t
n

. Einsteins time-transformation formula (10) is

) cos (

c
t t 1 , which leads to
) ( ) cos (

xos
c c
t
n

1 1
.
Obviously, Einsteins theory is inconsistent.
12
Moreover, Einsteins c c means . and are the wavelengths measured in the S -system and the S -
system respectively. Thus, there must be:

) cos (

1
. (21)
A single wave with its front at ) , , (
2 2 2
z y x and tail at ) , , (
1 1 1
z y x has its wavelength in the S -system as
2
1 2
2
1 2
2
1 2
) ( ) ( ) ( z z y y x x + +
. Lorentzs
) ( t x x
makes the wavelength measured in the S
-system as
( ) ( ) ( )
2
1 2
2
1 2
2
1 2
z z y y x x + +
.
Since ) ( ) ( ) (
1 2 1 2 1 2
x x t x t x x x , we have from (21):
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
) cos (

c
z z y y x x
z z y y x x

+ +
+ +
1
2
1 2
2
1 2
2
1 2 2
1 2
2
1 2
2
1 2
2
.
The above equation can never be true if there exists any relative motion ( 0 and 1 ). This displays that the c c and
) ( t x x
based E-L Transformation (6) is questionable and Einsteins formula (20) is wrong. According to (20), if a
receiver moves at c toward a source of light, it would find the frequency because of , no matter how low
the sources frequency is. Einstein admits that this is contrary to the usual conception and the effect of motion on the light
frequency that is to be ascertained by the observer is not completely given by the Doppler effect.
In contrast, the t t and t x x based Galilean Transformation (10) gives:

1 2 1 2 1 2
x x t x t x x x ) ( ) ( and .
The relative motion does not change the wavelength of light.
Moreover, because of
c
c

due to c , c and , we can deduce from (10) the following

frequency-transformation formula:

cos
c c
2 1
2
2
+ . (22)
If

, then ) (
c

+ 1 ; if 0 , then ) (
c

1 . These are exactly the Doppler effects. If c and

, then 2 . If c and 0 , then 0 ; the light cannot catch up with a receiver moving at c
away from the source.
If a star moves at velocity v away from us and radiates a ray with frequency toward us, the velocity of the ray must be
reduced from c to c c and the ray s frequency sensed by us reduced from to ) (
c

1 while its wavelength

remains unchanged . So, the Red Shift must be frequency-shift, not wavelength-shift.
In short, both the Doppler effect and the Red Shift are caused by the variation of the speed of light.
6 The Aberration
Einsteins formula for the aberration is:

cos
cos
cos
c
c

1
. (23)

and are angles between the direction of relative motion and the paths of light observed in the S -system and the S -
system respectively.
Suppose at an initial moment 0 t t the two systems origins O and O are overlapping and a ray is emitted from a
source fixed to the S -systems origin. At a certain moment t , as O has moved from O to t x , the ray reaches
F
and
meets an observer who is at rest in the S -system. To this S -observer, whose abscissa in the S -system is x , the rays path is
ct OF
. Another observer, moving together with the S -system, happens to be at F at the same moment measured by S -
13
clock as t . The S -observer with abscissa x in the S -system sees the rays path as
t c F O
. The above figure shows
t
OP
ct
t x
ct
x

+
cos and
PF OP ct +
. Placing them into Einsteins formula (23), we get
PF
x
OP ct
x
vt
OP
c
c ct
t x

1
cos
. But, the figure shows
t c
x

cos . Since
PF t c > , so Einsteins
formula (23) is wrong.
Actually, from the ) ( t x x and c c based E-L Transformation (6) we can directly obtain:

ct
x
c
c ct
x
ct
x
c
t c
t x
t c
x

1 1 ) (
) (
.
Due to cos
ct
x
and

cos
t c
x
, we get Einsteins wrong formula (23):

cos
cos
cos
c
c

1
.
Detailed analysis in Appendix A3 shows Lorentzs ) ( t x x
inevitably leads to the wrong formula (23). Other
words, Einsteins formula (23) is wrong because ) ( t x x is wrong .
On the other hand, from the t x x and t t based Galilean Transformation (10) we can directly get:

cos
cos
cos
c c
c
ct
x
c c
c ct
x
t c
x
2 1 2 1
2
2
2
2
+

. (24)
(24) can be written as

cos ) )( ( ) ( ) (
cos
cos
ct t t ct
t ct
2
2 2
+

. From the triangle O OF we have:
2 2 2
2 ) ( cos ) )( ( ) ( ) ( t c ct t t ct + and x t ct cos ,
14
which leads back to
t c
x

cos . So, our formula is correct. The correctness of (24) validates not only the Galilean
Transformation (10) in general but also the Galilean t x x in particular (See Appendix A 3).
7 Transformation of Energy
The Mass-Energy Equivalence for Moving Bodies
Through a complicated process of deduction and by use of his (6) and (13), Einstein presents a formula for the
transformation of energy between the S -system and the S -system:
) cos (

c
E E 1 . (25)
E
and
E are energies measured in the two reference systems respectively,

is the angle between the direction of c

and the
direction of

. The source of radiation is static in the S -system but moving at velocity with the S -system.
Indeed, it is simple to get (25), since we now have the quantum mechanics. Energy measured in the S -system is h E
and measured in the S -system is h E . Here, h is the Planck constant, and are the frequencies in the S -system
and the S -system respectively. Einsteins frequency-transformation formula (20) leads directly to:
) cos ( ) cos (

c
E
c
h h E 1 1 .
It must be noted that all the (6), (13) and (20) are wrong so that Einsteins formula (25) is incorrect.
A correct energy-transformation formula must stem from our correct frequency-transformation formula (22):

cos cos
c c
E
c c
h h E 2 1 2 1
2
2
2
2
+ + . (26)
By use of his wrong formula (25), nevertheless, Einstein has discovered his famous Principle of Mass-Energy Equivalence
for static bodies.

We will analyze his discovery in a detailed way to reveal its shortcomings and to make this principle
applicable to moving bodies.
Einstein proposes a static body in the S -system emitting a plane wave of light with energy
2
E
(measured in the S -system)
in a direction making an angle

with the
X
-axis. The static body simultaneously emits an equal quantity of energy in the
opposite direction (
+
). Total emitted energy is E . Einstein applies his formula (25) to transforming the emitted energy
E
measured in the S -system into energy
E measured in the S -system:
( )

E
c
E
c
E
E
1
]
1

+ + cos ) cos ( 1
2
1
2
. (27)
Actually, it is unnecessary to propose the two symmetrically opposite plane waves. It is easy to get (27) by the integration of
a spherical waves energy, because any and every ray from a spherical wave corresponds with an equivalent ray in a
symmetricallyopposite direction. To make it simpler, we take a two-dimensional circular wave:

E d
c
E E

2
0
1
2
1
) cos ( . (27)
The static body in the S -system loses its energy
E
due to the emission: E E E
1 0
, where
0
E and
1
E are its
energies measured in the S -system before and after the emission respectively. In the S -system, the same body is moving and
loses its energy
E so that E E H H
1 0
, here
0
H and
1
H are its energies measured in the S -system before
and after the emission respectively.
In the S -system, the moving body has certain kinetic energy
K
. In the S -system the same body is at rest and does not
have kinetic energy. Before the emission, the difference between the bodys energy
0
H and
0
E , measured in the S -system
and the S -system respectively, is K E H
0 0
. After the emission, the difference between the bodys energy
1
H and
1
E ,
measured in the two systems respectively, must remain the same so that K E H
1 1
. Thus, there must be:
( ) ( ) 0
1 1 0 0
E H E H . However, since 0 and 1 , Einstein finds:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 0 1
1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0
E E E E E H H E H E H .

Does the Inertia of a Body Depend upon Its Energy Content?, Annalen der Physik, 17, 1905. In his original text, Einstein
denotes the energy as
L
, not
E
.
15
This inequality can be reasonable only if the body loses a part of its inertial mass due to the emission and, correspondingly, its
kinetic energy changes from
0
K to
1
K before and after the emission:
( ) ( )
2
1 0 1 1 0 0
2
1
m K K E E E H E H .
Here, m is the lost inertial mass (mass-defect) due to the emission of energy and
2
2
1
m is the lost kinetic energy due to the
mass-defect. Because of E E , the above equation can be expressed as:
2
2
1 1
1

m E E E ) (
or 2
2 2
2
2
1 1
2
1
mc
c
c
E

. (28)
and, upon expanding
2 2
1 c
into a power series,

2
2
2
4
1
1
1
mc
c
E
+ +

. (28)
In case of 0 , the two reference systems S and S coincide and the source of radiation is at rest in both systems so that
(28) gives
2
mc E E
. This is Einsteins formula of the mass-energy equivalence for static bodies.
Einstein assumes 0 and 1 to discover
2
mc E
through E E . However, his formula
2
mc E

stands only when 0 and 1 . There is certain inherent logical contradiction in his method of proof. If a body moves
at large

so that high orders of c are not negligible, Einsteins method of proof becomes problematic. In fact, (28)
directly gives: , .6 0
c

2
9 . 0 mc E
; , .8 0
c

2
8 . 0 mc E
; , 1
c

2
5 . 0 mc E
.
As

increases, the efficiency of the mass-energy conversion decreases. This would mean that a fast-moving nuclear bomb is
less powerful than a static one ! However, a reasonale intuition tells us the contrary: A moving bomb must be more powerful
because the kinetic energy of its lost mass, converted into the energy, must contribute certain additional amount of energy to the
total output of energy.
To sum up, Einsteins theory cannot correctly and precisely prove the principle of mass-energy equivalence for moving
bodies.
Our theory can remedy Einsteins shortcomings. From our formula (26) for the transformation of energy, we have:
) cos (

c c
E E 2 1
2
2
2 2
+ .
For two plane waves in the opposite directions

and ( ) + with equal quantity of energy

,
_

2
E
:
) cos (

c c
E E
2 1
2 2
2
2
2 2
+

,
_

,
_

and )] cos( [

+ +

,
_

,
_

c c
E E
2 1
2 2
2
2
2 2
or
) ( ) cos cos (
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2
1
2
2 2 1 2 1
2 2
2
c
E
c c c c
E E

,
_

+ + + +

,
_

,
_

or
2 2
1 c E E + . (29)
We also can get (29) by an integrtion of a circular waves energy-transformation formula (26):
) ( ) cos (
2 2 2
2
0
2
2
2 2
1 2 1
2
1
c E d
c c
E E

+ +

or
2 2
1 c E E + .
It is important to note that our formula (29) transforms all-round radiated energy from the S -system into the S -system,
whereas our formula (26) transforms energy of a single ray radiated at angle

with regard to the direction of relative motion.

Through a similar procedure but substituting our
2 2
1 c E E +
for Einsteins E E , we can get:
16

2
2 2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
mc
c
c
E

(30)
and, upon expamding
2 2
1
1
c +
into a power series:

2
2
2
4
3
1
1
mc
c
E
+

(30)
For static bodies ( 0 ), our (30) gives the same
2
mc E E
. For moving bodies, our (30) gives:
, .6 0
c

2
26 . 1 mc E ; , .8 0
c

2
46 . 1 mc E ; , 1
c

2
71 . 1 mc E .
Indeed, a moving nuclear bombs mass-energy conversion produces more energy than a static one. Our theory can
convincingly and logically prove the mass-energy equivalence for moving bodies.
8 Questioning Einsteins Mechanics
In the above-mentioned 1905 and 1907 papers, Einstein developes his relativistic mechanics . We will point out many
operational mistakes and inconsistencies in his studies.
8.1. Transformation of Velocity and Acceleration.
Einstein introduces the following notations for the components of velocity and acceleration:
,
dt
dx
x ,
dt
dy
y ,
dt
dz
z
,
2
2
dt
x d
dt
x d
x


,
2
2
dt
y d
dt
y d
y


.
2
2
dt
z d
dt
z d
z


Due to the uniform relative motion ( constant), the E-L Transformation (6) gives:
( )

x
dt
dt
dt
dx
dt
x d
) ( , y
dt
dy
dt
y d

, z
dt
dz
dt
z d

,
) ( ) ( x
c dt
dx
c dt
t d

2 2
1 1

. (31)
(31) can transform components of velocity and acceleration from the S -system into the S -system:
x
c
x
dt t d
dt x d
t d
x d
x

2
1

/
/
,
3
2
3
1 ) (
/
/
x
c
x
dt t d
dt x d
t d
x d
x

) (
/
/
x
c
y
dt t d
dt y d
t d
y d
y

2
1

,
3
2
2
2 2
1
1
) (
) (
/
/
x
c
x y
c
y x
c
dt t d
dt y d
t d
y d
y

(32)
) (
/
/
x
c
z
dt t d
dt z d
t d
z d
z

2
1

,
3
2
2
2 2
1
1
) (
) (
/
/
x
c
x z
c
z x
c
dt t d
dt z d
t d
z d
z

.
Thus,
x
x
y
y

) (
,
x
x
z
z

) (
x y
c x
y
x
c
y +


] ) [
2 2
1

, x z
c x
z
x
c
z +


] ) [(
2 2
1

.
It is well known that the S -systems velocity components ( x , y , z ) are perpendicular to and independent of each other.
However, the above four equations show that the transversal components z y , and z y , in the S -system are interlinked
17
with the longitudinal components x x , . These interlinks violate the relativity principle demanding that natural laws have
identical forms in all systems of reference. It can be seen from (32) that the interlinks stem from a common denominator
), ( x
c

2
1

which comes from ) ( x
c dt
t d

2
1

due to Einsteins time-asynchronism ). ( x

c
t t
2

The time-
asynchronism in turn comes from c c and ) ( t x x .
8.2. Einsteins Operational Mistakes.
Einstein has developed his mechanics by studying electromagnetic acceleration of an electron. He suggests an electron
initially at rest in the S -system ( 0
0
x , 0
0
y , 0
0
z ) but moving at velocity in the S -system (
0
x , 0
0
y ,
0
0
z ). In the S -system the electron is accelerated in an electric field:
,
x
E e x m ,
y
E e y m
.
z
E e z m (33)
where
m
and
e
are the electrons mass and charge respectively, (
x
E
,
y
E
,
z
E
) are components of the electric fields intensity
measured in the S -system.

By use of (32) and (13), the equations in (33) can be transformed from the S -system into the S -system. For example, at
the initial moment when ,
0
x x it can be obtained from (32):

x x
c
x
x
c
x
x

3
3
6
3
2
2
3
3
2
3
1
1

) (
) (
(32)
Similarly,
y
c
y
y


2
2
2
2
2
1

) (
and
2
2
2
2
1 ) (
c
z
z

= z
2

Then, because of (13), the equations in (33) become:

,
x
eE x m
3
), (
z y
H
c
E e y m


2
) (
y z
H
c
E e z m

+
2
or ,
x
eE x m
3
) (
z y
H
c
E e y m

, ) (
y z
H
c
E e z m

+ (34)
The left sides of all equations in (34) are incorrect. Because, only at the initial moment, when ,
0
x x
, 0
0
y y , 0
0
z z there can be , x x
3
, y y
2
z z
2
from (32). Once the acceleration begins
so that x , 0 y , 0 z , it is necessary to use the general form (32) to do the transformation:
x
eE
x
c
x
m

3
2
3
1 ) (

) (
) (
) (
z y
H
c
E e
x
c
x y
c
v
y x
c
m

+
3
2
3
2 2
1
1

(35)
) (
) (
) (
y z
H
c
E e
x
c
x z
c
z x
c
m

+
3
2
3
2 2
1
1

Next, Einstein needlessly introduces a notation
2
0
2
0
2
0
z y x q + +
, i.e.,
0
x q (due to 0
0
y and 0
0
z

In his original text, Einstein denotes (

Z Y X , ,
) and (
N M L , ,
) instead of (
z y x
E E E , ,
) and (
z y x
H H H , ,
), and

and instead of m and e .
18
) and changes
2 2
1
1
c

to
2 2
1
1
c q

. He also uses simplified notations
z y x
K K K , , to represent the
right sides of his wrong equations in (34). Because of ,
dt
x d
x


dt
y d
y

and ,
dt
z d
z

he writes:
x
K
c q
x m
dt
d

) (
2 2
1

y
K
c q
y m
dt
d

) (
2 2
1

(34)
z
K
c q
z m
dt
d

) (
2 2
1

Here, he commits another mistake in (34), which stems from his wrong differential calculus. He writes:
( )
) ( ) (
2
2
0
0 0
2
0
2
0
0
2
0
2
1
1
1
c
x
c
x
x x
c
x
c
x
t d
x d
dt
d
t d
x d

+
,
_

,
_

Since ,
0
x x so his wrong calculus gives:

0
2
0
2
x
t d
x d

2 2
0
1 c
x

Actually, a correct calculus should be:
( )
3
2
0
2
0
0 0
2
0
2
0
2
1
1
) (
) (
c
x
c
x
x x
c
x
t d
x d

and, accordingly, for the initial moment:

( )
( ) ( )
3
2 2
0
3
2 2
0
2
2 2
0
2
0
2
1 1
1
c q
x
c
x
c
x
t d
x d

The left side of the first equation in (34) must be:
1
1
]
1

3 2 2
1 ) ( c q
x m
dt
d
Editors of Einsteins 1907 paper found the mistake in his differential calculus and noted: In the second denominator, the
parenthesis should be raised to the third power.

Sadly, they stopped halfway without pointing out and rectifying

Einsteins following mistake in the first equation of (34) caused by his wrong differential calculus.
Based on (34), which contains multiple mistakes, Einstein claims that he can obtain:
( )

+ +
2 2
2
1 c q
mc
dt z K y K x K
z y x

Here, he commits one more operational mistake. Even from his wrong (34), the integral should give:
( ) + +

+ +

dt
dt
z d
z
dt
y d
y
dt
x d
x
c q
m
dt z K y K x K
z y x
) (

2 2
1
( )
2 2 2
2 2 2 2
1 2 1 2
z y x
c q
m
z d z y d y x d x
c q
m
+ +

+ +

) (

2 2
2
1 c q
mc

By use of the left sides of equations in (35) and because of x d dt x , y d dt y , z d dt z , there ought to be:

The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 2, pp.454-455 and endnote [42], The Princeton University Press, 1987.
19
dt z
x
c
x z
c
z x
c
m y
x
c
x y
c
y x
c
m x
x
c
x
m

1
1
1
1
]
1

+
+

+
+

3
2
3
2 2
3
2
3
2 2
3
2
3
1
1
1
1
1 ) (
) (
) (
) (
) (

( )
1
1
1
1
1
]
1

,
_

,
_

,
_

+ +

z d
x
c
z
y d
x
c
y
x d
x
c
z y
c
x
m

2
2
2
2
3
2
2 2
2
3
1 1 1

Since x , y , z are independent variables, the above integral gives:

( )

1
]
1

+ +

,
_

,
_

+ +
2 2
2 2
2
2
3
2
1
z y
c
x
c
x
c
m
dt z K y K x K
z y x

Having corrected Einsteins multiple mistakes, we still come to an absurd result. Because, his E-L Transformation (6) is
fundamentally wrong so that his (32) and (13) are ill-rooted.
8.3. Questioning Einsteins Formula of Moving Mass.
Suppose a static body in the S -system has static mass m equivalent to energy
2
mc E
. In the S -system, the body is
moving at velocity

along the X -axis so that, according to Einsteins energy-transformation formula (27),

2 2
2
2 2
1 1 c
mc
c
E
E E

. The relativity principle demands that the mass-energy equivalence be invariant
in the S -system:
2
c m E
. Therefore, Einsteins postulate c c leads to:
m
c
E
c
E
m

2 2
or
2 2
1 c
m
m


. (36)
On the other hand, by use of his acceleration-transformation formula (32), Einstein deduced a formula for a mass moving at
velocity along the S -systems longitudinal
X
-axis as follows:
An electron with static mass m is accelerated in the S -system by a longitudinal electric force
x
E e so that its kinematic
equation in the S -system is
x
E e x m . According to (32) and (13), x x
3
and
x x
E E so that the kinematic
equation transformed into the S -system becomes
x
eE x m
3
. Therefore,

3 2 2
3
1 ) ( c
m
m m

. (37)
The moving electrons moving mass m was named by Einstein in 1905 as the longitudinal mass. The longitudinal
mass deduced from his acceleration-transformation formula (32) ought to be the same as the moving mass deduced from his
energy-transformation formula (27). Yet, (37) and (36) are different, although both (32) and (27) originate from the E-L
Transformation (6). The difference reveals another inherent inconsistency in his special relativity theory.
8.4. Questioning Einsteins Formula of Kinetic Energy.
A moving bodys kinetic energy
k
E must be the difference between its energy
E , measured in the S -system where it is
moving, and its energy
E
, measured in the S -system where it is at rest. Because of c c , Einsteins formula of the kinetic
energy is:
( )
2 2 2
c m m mc c m E E E
k
. (38)
On the other hand, if a body is accelerated under the action of a force
F
, then the work done by the force becomes the bodys
kinetic energy
k
E . Hence,

Fdx E
k
. Once the body begins moving, its mass becomes a variable moving mass m so that
x m F .
Therefore,

x d x m x d
dt
dx
m dx
dt
x d
m dx x m E
k

. (39)
20
According to Einsteins formula (36),
2 2
1 c x
m
m


at the instant moment of x . If a static body ( 0 x ) is
accelerated to x , then it must have acquired such kinetic energy as:

0
2 2 2 2 2
2 2
1 1
1
m c m m c mc x d x
c x
m
E
k
) ( ) (

. (40)
The difference between (40) and (38) reveals another inherent inconsistency in Einsteins mechanics.
In order to get ( )
2
c m m E
k
, the moving mass has to be as absurd as 2
2
2c
v
me m
so that
( )

,
_

0 0
2 2 2
2 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1 c m m mc c me e mc x d x me x d x m E
c c c
k
.
To sum up, Einsteins mechanics is ill-developed. Aside from multiple operational mistakes, the deep root of its failures is the
E-L Transformation (6) which is ill-based on the two invalid postulates c c and ( ) t x x . which in turn lead to the
time-asynchronism ) ( x
c
t t
2

.
9 Relativistic Mechanics Based on Variable Speed of Light
9.1. Transformation of Velocity and Acceleration.
The Galilean Transformation (10) is based on the proven universal time-synchronism t t so that 1

dt
t d
.
Therefore, for a uniform relative motion ( 0
dt
d
) along the
X
-axis we have:
( )

x t x
dt
d
t d
x d
x , ( ) x
dt
d
dt
x d
x
dt
d
t d
x d
t d
d
x

,
_

y
dt
dy
t d
y d
y

, y
dt
y d
dt
dy
dt
d
t d
y d
t d
d
y

,
_

,
_

(41)
z
dt
dz
t d
z d
z

, z
dt
z d
dt
dz
dt
d
t d
z d
t d
d
z

,
_

,
_

(41)shows no longitudinal-transversal interlinks among ( x , y
, z ; x , y
, z ), which conform to the principle of
relativity. Actually, (41) is the Galilean transformation for the case of one-dimensional relative motion in the
X
-
direction.
9.2. Mass, Energy, Kinetic Energy, Total Energy.
Definition 1. A bodys static mass
m
is the bodys mass measured in a reference system static in relation to the body
or, by other words, measured in the bodys own reference system. Static mass is a bodys inherent property and can be named as
its eigenmass.
Definition 2. A bodys moving mass m is the bodys mass measured in a reference system moving in relation to the
body. The value of m depends upon the bodys eigenmass m and the relative velocity between the body and the reference
system: ( ) , m f m .
Definition 3. A bodys mass-energy is the energy equivalent to the bodys mass; A bodys static mass-energy
2
mc E
m
is the energy equivalent to the bodys static mass
m
; A bodys moving mass-energy
2
c m E
m

is the
energy equivalent to the bodys moving mass m .
2
c
is a constant coefficient of equivalent conversion between mass and
mass-energy. c is the speed of light with regard to the lights own source of radiation so that c is constant and has nothing
to do with any relative motion.
Newtonian mechanics deems a bodys mass m constant, no matter the body moves or not, so that

x d x m dx x m Fdx . Hence, if a body is accelerated from 0 x to x , its static mass acquires kinetic energy
21

0
2
2
1
m x d x m E
km
.
Relativistic mechanics deems that, if a body starts moving, then its mass becomes variable moving mass m so that the kinetic
energy acquired by the bodys is

0
x d x m E
km
.
Definition 4. Kinetic energy acquired by a bodys eigenmass during its acceleration from 0 x to x is called
acquired kinetic energy :

0
x d x m E
km
.
A static bodys total energy is just its static mass-energy
2
mc E E
m
. Having been accelerated to velocity , the
bodys static mass has acquired kinetic energy
km
E and its total energy becomes:
km m
E E E +
km
E mc +
2
so that
2
mc E E
km

.
On the other hand, according to our (29),
2 2
1 c E E +
or
2 2 2
1 c mc E +
so that
) ( 1 1
2 2 2 2
+ c mc mc E E
km

. (42)
Therefore,

0
2 2 2
1 1 ) ( c mc x d x m
. Due to

m x d x m
dv
d

,
_

0

, the derivative of both sides of the
equation gives:
2 2
1 c
m
m

+

or
2 2
1 c
m
m
+

. (43)
If a body with eigenmass m moves at x , then its moving mass is
2 2
1 c x
m
m
+

. Accelerated from 0 x to
x , the bodys eigenmass acquires kinetic energy:

+
+

0 0
2 2 2
2 2
1 1
1
) ( c mc x d x
c x
m
x d x m E
km

,
which is exactly the formula (42). Our new relativistic mechanics is coherent.
(43) shows m m < and allows limitless speed . If c , then
2 / m m
. If a body has infinitely high speed (
), then we cannot sense it ( 0 m ).
We also can deduce (43) directly from the relativity principle. Suppose a static source of light in the S -system emits energy
E

2
mc
and loses its static mass
m
. The energy is emitted with isotropic velocity
c
. In the
S
-system, the same event
appears as the source moves at velocity , emits energy
E and loses its moving mass m . The relativity principle demands
the mass-energy equivalence law be invariant in the S -system so that
2
c m E
. According to our velocity-transformation
formula (10), the velocity of light c in the S -system is anisotropic:

cos
c c
c c 2 1
2
2
+
so that the
distribution of the emitted energy
E is anisotropic, too. Within an element of angle d , the element of emitted energy is

2
2
d
c m E d . The total emitted energy is:

+ +

2
0
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2 2
1 2 1
2
1
2
1
) ( ) cos (
c
c m d
c c
c m d c m E d E .
or
2 2
m c m E +
. (44)
On the other hand, our formula (29) is
2 2 2 2 2
1 1 c mc c E E + +
so that from (44) we have
22
) (
2 2 2 2 2 2
1 1 c c m c mc + +
. Again, we come to
2 2
1 c
m
m
+

.
Definition 5. Physical quantity
2
m
is the kinetic energy possessed by a moving bodys moving mass m :
2
m E
m k

. (45)
Since a moving bodys moving mass m is equivalent to its moving mass-energy
2
c m E
m

, so the moving bodys

total energy
E can be expressed as
m k m
E E m c m E

+ +
2 2

or
E
( ) ( )
2 2 2 2 2
2 2
2 2
1
1
c mc c
c
m
c m

+ +
+
+ 2 2
1 c E +
.
As above-mentioned, a body at rest has only static mass-energy
2
mc E E
m
. Having been accelerated and acquired
kinetic energy
2 2 2
1 c mc E
km
+
, the body becomes moving and its total energy is:
E
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
1 1 1 c mc c mc mc E E
km m
+ + + + ) (
2 2
1 c E +
.
Therefore, a moving bodys total energy
E may have two identical expressions (by either moving mass m or static mass
m
): Total energy E Moving mass-energy
m
E

+ Kinetic energy possessed by moving mass
m k
E

+ +

2 2
m c m E E E
m k m
2 2
1 c E +
or Total Energy
E Static mass-energy
m
E + Kinetic energy acquired by static mass
km
E

2 2 2 2 2 2 2
1 1 1 c mc c mc mc E E E
km m
+ + + + ) (
2 2
1 c E +
Both expressions end up in our energy-transformation formula (29), which displays the consistency of our new relativistic
mechanics.
In a closed energy-conservative system without external forces action, a body may be static without kinetic energy in relation
to one reference system but moving with certain kinetic energy with regard to another reference system.
Definition 6. In a closed energy-conservative system, a bodys kinetic energy, due to its relative motion with regard to certain
reference system, is defined as relative kinetic energy
k
E .
Suppose a body with static mass m rests in certain reference system so that its total energy in this reference system is just
its static mass-energy
2
mc
. In relation to another reference system, however, the body may move and have certain relative
kinetic energy
k
E in addition to its moving mass-energy
2
c m
so that its total energy must be
k
E c m +
2
. An energy-
conservative system must contain constant energy so that:

k
E c m mc +
2 2
or ( )
2
c m m E
k
. (46)
Again, there must be m m < , because kinetic energy can never be negative.
We can come to (46) by another way. Lets study two bodies A and B relatively moving with regard to each other in a
closed energy-conservative system. If A is chosen as a reference system, then A is static with static mass-energy
2
c m
A
but
its kinetic energy 0
kA
E , B is moving with moving mass
B
m so that it has moving mass-energy
2
c m
B
and kinetic
energy
kB
E . Total energy of the energy-conservative system is ( )
kB B A
E c m c m + +
2 2
. If B is chosen as a reference
system, then B is static with static mass-energy
2
c m
B
but without kinetic energy 0
kB
E , A is moving with moving
mass
A
m so that it has moving mass-energy
2
c m
A
and kinetic energy
kA
E . Total energy of the same closed energy-
conservative system is ( )
kA A B
E c m c m + +
2 2
.
Total energy of a closed energy-conservative system must remain constant so that:
) ( ) (
kA A B kB B A
E c m c m E c m c m + + + +
2 2 2 2
or
kB B B kA A A
E c m m E c m m
2 2
) ( ) ( .
Yet, with A as the reference system: 0
A
,
A A
m m , 0
kA
E ,
2
c m m E
B B kB
) ( ; but, with B as the
reference system: 0
B
,
B B
m m , 0
kB
E , ( )
2
c m m E
A A kA
. Since a reference system can be arbitrarily
chosen, so ( )
2
c m m E
k
is a common formula of the relative kinetic energy. This formula is diametrically opposed to
Einsteins kinetic energy formula and again testifies m m < .
Formula (44) for moving mass and formula (46) for relative kinetic energy can be successfully used to precisely
23
calculate the angular deflection of light passing over the suns surface (Appendix B) and the perihelion motion of Mercury
(Appendix C3). These are the strong evidence that our new relativistic mechanics is correct.
To sum up, it is necessary for the relativistic mechanics to define three kinds of kinetic energy:
kinetic energy
km
E acquired by static mass m to become moving, kinetic energy
m k
E

possessed by moving mass m and
relative kinetic energy
k
E . They are applicable to different cases (See 9.4, Appendices B and C). Expanded into power series,
they are:

2 2
2
2
2 2 2
2
1
4
1
1
2
1
1 1

m m
c
c mc E
km
+ + ) ( ) (
if c < <
2 2
2
2
2
2 2
2
2
1
1
1

m m
c
c
m
m E
m k
+
+

) (
if c < <
( )
2 2
2
2
2 2
2
2 2
2
1
4
3
1
2
1
1

m m
c
c
mc
mc c m m E
k
+
+
) (
if c < <
It is important to note that
2
m E
m k

when c < < , it does not approximate to the non-relativistic Newtonian

2
2
1
m . This is extremely important for the quantum mechanics (See 9.4).
9.3. Interpretation of Relativistic vs Non-Relativistic.
Suppose both A and B carry accelerometers and are at rest. A has static mass m and, correspondingly, static mass-
energy
2
mc E
m
. Beginning at certain moment, A feels being acted by some external force and his accelerometer shows
0 x , while B feels no external action and his accelerometer always remians 0 x . A starts departing from B.
Lets first analyze As self-assessment. Referred to himself, A always deems that he is static with constant eigenmass m .
A may use his accelerometers x -readings to calculate the kinetic energy he has acquired due to the external forces action:


x x
x m x d x m dx x m


0
2
0
2
1
. Having been accelerated to x , A assesses his acquired kinetic energy as
2
2
1
m ,
which is Newtonian. So, the Newtonian mechanics can be used for the non-relative self-assessment, because it holds the mass
m absolutely constant and does not recognize the variable moving mass m . That is why the Newtonian mechanics is non-
relativistic.
Lets now analyze how B assesses A, which is a relative assessment of A (object) by B (subject). Remaining at
rest, B deems that A, moving at velocity x , has varying moving mass
2 2
1 c x
m
m
+

. B can use the x -
readings, dispatched by A to B or measured by B himself through external ballistic telemetry, to calculate the kinetic energy
acquired by A. Accelerated to x , A with moving mass m has acquired kinetic energy:
( )
km
x x
E c mc x d x
c x
m
x d x m dx x m +
+


1 1
1
2 2 2
0
2 2
0 0

,
in addition to its original static mass-energy
2
mc E
m
. So, B deems that A has total energy:
( ) + + + +
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
1 1 1 c mc c mc mc E E E
km m

E E E v m c m c c c m
m k m
+ + + +

2 2 2 2 2 2 2
1 1
Thus, a static subject can relatively assess the kinetic energy of a relatively moving object in two ways:
Based on the objects moving mass m , then the objects kinetic energy is
2
m E
m k

Based on the objects static eigenmass

m
, then the objects kinetic energy is
) ( 1 1
2 2 2
+ c mc E
km

The essential difference between non-relativistic mechanics and relativistic mechanics lies in that: the former
recognizes only constant static eigenmass and thus can only be used for a subjects non-relative self-assessment of itself,
whereas the latter recognizes variable moving mass and thus can be used by a subject to assess a relatively moving object.
Newtonian mechanics is non-relativistic and applicable to any cases of subjective self-assessment. It is wrong to say that
Newtonian mechanics is inapplicable to cases concerning high velocity ( c ). For any subjective self-assessment, the
Newtonian mechanics is always precise and not approximate. Astronauts, for example, must always use non-relativistic
Newtonian mechanics to subjectively calculate their own velocity and acquired kinetic energy, no matter how high the velocity
24
they have reached.
We (subjects) must always use relativistic mechanics to study relatively moving objects, no matter how slow they are
moving. However, Einsteins relativistic mechanics not only is erroneusly developed but also misleads people to believe that the
speed of relative motion is a determinant factor: c < < is non-relativistic; c is relativistic. We must use relativistic
mechanics based on variable speed of light (shortly new relativistic mechanics) developed in this paper.
In quantum mechanics we (subjects) study relatively moving partcles (objects) so that the quantum mechanics is always
relativistic (See 9.4). It is wrong to say that Newtonian mechanics can be approximately used for cases with slow moving
particles.
In short, Self-assessment is non-relativistic. Relative assessment is relativistic. Relativistic or non-relativistic
is not determined by the velocity of relative motion.
9.4. The de Broglie Matter Wave.
A moving particles matter wave has wavelength
P
h
and frequency
h
E
, here
P
and
E
are the moving
particles momentum and energy respectively. What energy does
E
represent? Classical quantum mechanics has so far been
unable to answer this question clearly and definitely.
Newtonian kinetic energy
2
2
1
m E and momentum m P make

2 P
E
and separate a moving
particle from its own matter wave regardless of how small is. This is because Newtonian mechanics is non-relativistic and
incompatible with quantum mechanics, in which we (subjects) study (i.e., assess) relatively moving particles (objects).
If Einsteins kinetic energy
2
c m m ) ( is used as
E
in the matter waves frequency formula
h
E
, then

2
2 2
2 2
1 1 1
c
c
c
m
m
m
c m m
P
E
) ( ) (
) (
, unless c . But, according to Einsteins
mechanics, no ponderable particle can move as fast as c . If a moving particles total energy
2
c m
is used as
E
, then
again

2 2
c
m
c m
P
E
, unless c . Obviously, Einsteins erroneus relativistic mechanics is not compatible
with the de Broglie matter wave theory either.
Classical quantum mechanics assumes a moving particle to be a wave packet composed of infinite number of monochromatic
plane waves by their superposition. The wave packets group velocity is
dk
d
g

, where angular frequency

E
2 and wave number

P
k

2
. So,
dP
dE
g
. To make the wave packets group velocity equal to the
moving particles volocity, the classical quantum mechanics has to resort to the non-relativistic Newtonian kinetic energy
2
2
m E , which separates the particle from its own matter wave. Because of

) (
) (
m d
m d
dP
dE
g
2
2
, the
physics community has accepted the concept of moving particles are wave packets to bypass the awkward .
Unfortunately, wave packets are destined to expand because
g
results in:
0
2
2

,
_

m dP
d
dk
d
dk
d
dk
d
dk
d
g

However, partcles never fatten up!
In short, the physics community has been half-believing the wave packet concept and in a quandry about the relationship
between a moving particle and its own matter wave.
Our new relativistic mechanics can solve this old puzzle. If a moving particles velocity is

, then its matter waves phase

velocity must be , too. Otherwise, the particle would be separated from its own matter wave and the separation would be
farther and farther over time. Hence,
P
E
or P E . Since m P , so
2
m P E
. This is exactly
the physical quantity
m k
E

(kinetic energy possessed by the moving particles moving mass) discovered by our new
relativistic mechanics. This discovery will cause significant breakthroughs in the quantum mechanics (For details see the
authors another paper Relativistic Quantum Mechnics Based on Variable Speed of Light).
Our new physical quantity
2
m
can also prove that the wave packets group velocity does not coincide with the moving
25
particles velocity:

2
2
) (
) (
m d
m d
dP
dE
dk
d
g
. Moreover, the wave packet will still expand:
0
2 2
2
2

m m d
d
dP
d
dk
d
dk
d
g g


) (
) (

.
Obviously, a partcle moving with velocity cannot be an expanding wave packet with group velocity 2
g
.

m
m
2
is precisely correct for any particle moving with any speed (form c < < to c > > ). A moving
particles total energy is
2 2
m c m E E
m k m
+ +

, in which the moving mass-eneregy
2
c m E
m

represents its
corpuscular property whereas the kinetic energy possessed by its moving mass
2
m E
m k

generates its matter waves

frequency
h
m
2

and displays its wave property. A static particle ( 0 , m m ) has only corpuscular property
characterized by its eigenmass m , but does not have wave property ( 0 ). For two bodies in relative motion, each of the two
deems itself static and having only corpuscular property (subjective assessment), but deems the other moving and having both
corpuscular and wave properties (objective assessment). Particles with c < and
2 2
c m m <
have overwhelming
corpuscular property. Particles with c > and
2 2
c m m >
have overwhelming wave property. Photons with c and
2 2
c m m
have balanced wave-corpuscular property. The formula
2 2
m c m E E
m k m
+ +

in our new
relativistic mechanics gives a perfect mathematical expression to both the principle of relativity and Bohrs principle of
complementarity.
10 Photon
Einsteins moving mass formula (36) requires photons static mass 0
f
m to avoid its moving mass
f
m . It also
sets the speed limit c < for all ponderable ( 0 m ) bodies to avoid infinite or imaginary and m . According to the
relativity principle, however, a photons motion (
c
) in relation to a ponderable body is equivalent to the ponderable bodys
motion at c in relation to the photon. So, the photon has to admit that the ponderable body has infinitely large moving mass!
To bypass this awkward quandary, Einsteins theory has to assume that photons do not comply with the relativity principle and can
not be taken as reference systems for others and even for themselves, i.e., not be static even in relation to themselves. Einsteins
mechanics also has to deny the existence of sub-light photons because, if c < , then
2 2
1
1
c
has a finite value and
0
f
m means a sub-light photons moving mass
0
1
2 2

c
m
m
f
f

. Moreover, 0
f
m and c result in an
uncertain value of photons moving mass
0
0

f
m , which leads to photons uncertain kinetic energy
2
c m
f
and uncertain
frequncy
h
c m
f
2

. Apparently, Einsteins relativity theory is dubious.
Scientists have found photons with super-light and sub-light velocities and even captured them at rest. Experiments are
challenging Einsteins theory.
Our formula (43) of moving mass allows photons to be ponderable particles with definite static mass and limitless speed. A
static photon with static mass
f
m has static mass-energy
2
c m E
f m
. It acquires certain kinetic energy from a source of light
and is emitted with c . The acquired kinetic energy is
) ( 1 1
2 2 2
+ c c c m E
f km
2
1 2 c m
f
) ( , according
to (42). Its total energy is
2
2 c m E E
f km m
+ . On the other hand, a photons moving mass-energy
2
c m E
f m

,
kinetic energy possessed by its moving mass
2
c m E
f m k


, moving mass
2
1
2 2
f f
f
m
c c
m
m
+

because of c .
So, its total energy is exactly
km m f f m k m
E E c m c m E E + +

2 2
2 2 .
26
A photon as a moving ponderable particle moving at c generates its own matter wave with frequency
h
c m
f
2

and wavelength
c m
h
f

. The matter waves phase velocity is exactly the photons velocity: c , which signifies that
electromagnetic wave is nothing else but photons matter wave. It is worthy to note that a photons total energy is
+
m k m
E E h c m
f
2 2
2
, not
h
While the photons moving mass-energy
2
c m E
f m

represents its
corpuscularity, the kinetic energy of the photons moving mass h c m E
f m k

2
generates its wave property.
m k m
E E

means that photons have balanced wave-corpuscular duality. This is very important for the quantum mechanics.
Photons frequency corresponds with its mass:
Photon Frequency

Moving Mass
f
m
[g] Static Mass
f
m
[g]

-ray
20
10

28
10 36 . 7



28
10 4 . 10


Visible Light
15
10

33
10 36 . 7



33
10 4 . 10


Radio Wave
4
10 <

44
10 36 . 7

<

44
10 4 . 10

<

photons static mass is about the same as electrons. This seems to help explain why the electron-positron annihilation
generates a pair of

-photons but not other photons and, reversely,

-photons penetrating a matters electric field near nuclei

generate electron-positron pairs.
11 General Relativity
11.1. Precise Proof of the Equivalence Principle.
The principle of equivalence between inertial mass m and gravitational mass
M
is a key to the general relativity theory.
Einstein tried for the first time to theoretically prove it in his 1911 paper On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of
Light. We will analyze his study in detail to reveal some fundamental faults in his theory. For readers to refer to his original
text, we follow Einsteins notations; for example, acceleration is designated as

, not a or
g
.
Einstein proposes a homogeneous gravitational field with constant
acceleration

in the negative direction of the

Z
-axis and an inertial field
with the same onstant acceleration

in the positive direction of the

Z
-axis. A
source of light at
2
S emits energy
2
E toward
1
S . The distance from
2
S to
1
S is h . The time for the light to pass the distance is
c
h
t , which means:
Einstein assumes that the gravity has no influence on the velocity of
propagation of light.
During a period of time from 0 t to t t , a receiver under the inertial
acceleration

gets velocity
c
h
t . Moving along the positive
direction of the
Z
-axis, the receiver happens to be at
1
S at the moment t and
receives the energy emitted from
2
S . Due to the relative motion between the
receiver and the source of light, Einsteins energy-transformation formula (25)
allows him to claim that the energy received by the receiver at
1
S is
) cos (

c
E E 1
2 1
or, because of

, ) (
c
E E

+ 1
2 1
.
Einstein assumes 1 but contradictorily 0 to get approximate ) (
c
E E

+ 1
2 1
. In order to transfer the
issue from the inertial field into the gravitational field, he uses his
c
h
, which is based on the assumption of no
gravitational influence on the velocity of light, to get a even more approximate ) (
2
2 1
1
c
h
E E

+ or
2
2 2 1
c
h
E E E

,
where h is the gravitational potential of
2
S over
1
S . He explains that the extra energy received at
1
S comes from the
potential energy of the sources gravitational mass
M
expended on the radiation of light:
p
E E E
2 1
and
p
E h M .
27
So, h M
c
h
E

2
2
or
2
2
Mc E .
In the inertial field, the sources inertial mass-defect m due to the emission of energy
2
E is
2
2
mc E . Therefore,
m M . The principle of equivalence between gravitaional mass
M
and inertial mass m is approximately proven.
Einsteins study suffers from serious shortcomings. His assumption of the velocity of light not influenced by the gravitational
acceleration illogically contradicts his original purpose to prove the influence of gravitation on the propagation of light. He
assumes 1 but contradictorily 0 . Even under the privileged condition of c < < and 1 , he can only
approximately prove m M . If
2
c h so that c
c
h
, then or imaginary, his method of proof would
fail at all!
Our energy transformation formula (26) is

cos
c c
E E 2 1
2
2
2 1
+
. In case of

, we have precise
) (
c
E E

+ 1
2 1
. We allow limitless , even c > . More importantly, we can show precisely the gravitational influence
on the propagation of light. Indeed, photons are ponderable so that they are subject to the gravitaional attraction. A photon
departs from the source at
2
S with initial velocity c . Traveling in the homogeneous gravitational field, the photon is accelerated
by constant gravitational

all the way down to

1
S . Based on the kinematic equations of constant acceleration, we have the
following relationships among h (distance traveled), t (time spent), (increment of the photons velocity) and c (photons
velocity at
1
S ):

t
,
2
2
1
t ct h + , + c c
so that
2
2
1 1
c
h
c

+ +
and
2
2
1
c
h
c c

+ .
Therefore, we can obtain a precise formula for the energy-transformation in the gravitational field:
2
2 1
2
1
c
h
E E

+
or

,
_

+ 1
2
1
2
2 2 1
c
h
E E E

.
Since h M E E E
p

2 1
, we have
1
2
1
2
2
+

c
h
h M
E

. Expanding
2
2
1
c
h
+
into power series, we get:
+

,
_

,
_

2
2 2
2
2
8
1 2
2
1
c
h
c
h
h M
E

=
+
2
2
2
1
c
h
Mc

.
At
2
S , where 0 h , we have precise
2
2
Mc E .
Due to
2
2
mc E in the inertial field, we have precise m M . Our proof is logical, precise and unconditional.
M
can
be named as non-potential gravitational mass or zero-potential gravitational mass, because it is measured at
2
S where
0 h and 0 h .
11.2. Influence of Gravitational Potential on Gravitational Mass.
It is important to note that Einsteins theory accepts the Newtonian mechanics which maintains a bodys gravitational mass
M
constant and irrelavant to the gravitational potential experienced by the body. Thus, the Newtonian potential energy is
h M dz M E
h
p

0
. However, as a bodys inertial mass depends on its relative velocity, then the bodys gravitational mass
must similarly depends on its relative potential, i.e., depends on its distance from the center of gravity. Therefore, the relativistic
28
potential energy acquired by
M
must be

h
p
dz M E
0
, where ( ) z f M . On the other hand, due to

,
_

+ 1
2
1
2
2 2 1
c
h
E E E E
p

and
2
2
Mc E , we have:

p
E

,
_

1
2
1
2
0
2
c
h
Mc dz M
h

. (42)
Because of M dz M
dh
d
h

,
_

0
, the derivation of both sides of (43) with respect to h gives:
2
2
2
2
1 2
/ 2
c
h
c
Mc M

+

or
2
2
1
c
h
M
M

+

. (43)
M may be named as potential gravitational mass in contrast to non-potential gravitational mass
M
. If a non-
potential gravitational mass
M
is lifted from a center of gravity ( 0 z ) to z , then it becomes a potential-gravitational mass
2
2
1
c
z
M
M

+

. When lifted from 0 z to h z , it acquires potential energy ;

,
_

+
+

1
2
1
2
1
2
2
0
2
c
h
Mc dz
c
z
M
E
h
p

.
This is exactly (43). With
2
2
1
c
h
+
expanded into power series, we get:

,
_

+
1
1
]
1

,
_

2
2
2 2
2
2
1
2
1
c
h
h M
c
h
c
h
Mc E
p

.
In a very weak gravitational field with
2
c h < < , we have h M E
p
, the Newtonian potential energy is approximately
applicable.
11.3. Comprehensive Correspondence between Inertial and Gravitational Fields.
If a body is driven by a constant acceleration

during a period of time t through a distance h , then

t
and
2
2
1
t h . Hence,
2
2
1
h . This is the general relationship between the velocity head
2
2
1
and the potential head
h , regardless of whether the acceleration

is inertial or gravitational. Due to

2
2
1
h and m M , the gravitational
fields formulae (42) and (43) correspond to the inertial fields formulae (42) and (43) respectively.
M
, lifted to a site with potential h , acquires potential energy

,
_

+ 1
2
1
2
2
c
h
Mc E
p

and its total energy
becomes:
E
2
2 2
2
1
c
h
Mc E Mc
p

+ +
.
On the other hand, since
2
2
1
c
h
M
M

+

, so the total energy can also be expressed as:
29
E
2
2
2
1
c
h
Mc

+
=
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
c
h
c
c
h
M

+ +
=

,
_

+
2
2
2
1
c
h
c M

=
h M c M + 2
2
.
2
c M
is potential gravitational mass-energy and corresponds to inertial moving mass-energy
2
c m
. h M 2 is potential
energy possessed by potential gravitational mass
M and, due to
2
2
1
h or
2
2 h , it corresponds to kinetic energy
2
m
possessed by inertial moving mass m .
In 9.2, we have expressed a moving bodys total energy in the inertial field in two ways:
Moving mass-energy
2
c m + Kinetic energy of moving Mass
2
m
Static mass-energy
2
mc
+ Acquired kinetic energy

,
_

+ 1 1
2
2
2
c
mc

Correspondingly, in the gravitational field we can express the total energy of a body located at a site with potential h in two
ways:
Potential mass-energy
2
c M + Potential energy of potential mass h M 2
Non-potential mass-energy
2
Mc
+ Acquired potential energy

,
_

+ 1
2
1
2
2
c
h
Mc

Obviously, due to m M and
2
2
1
h , there exists a comprehensive correspondence between gravitational and inertial
fields:
Potential gravitational mass
M vs Inertial moving mass m
Potential gravitational mass-energy
2
c M
vs Inertial moving mass-energy
2
c m
Newtonian non-relativistic potential energy h M vs non-relativistic kinetic energy 2
2
m
Acquired potential energy

,
_

+ 1
2
1
2
2
c
h
Mc

vs Acquired kinetic energy

,
_

+ 1 1
2
2
2
c
mc

Possessed potential energy h M 2 vs Possessed kinetic energy:
2
v m
Total energy
2
2
2
1
c
h
Mc

+
vs Total energy
2
2
2
1
c
mc

+
Total energy h M c M + 2
2
vs Total energy
2 2
m c m +
To sum up, we have precisely and unconditionally (for any strong potential h and any high relative speed ) proven not
only the equivalence of M m but also a comprehensive correspondence between gravitational and inertial fields and, thereby,
extended the special relativity in the inertial field smoothly and completely to a general relativity including the gravitational field.
11.4. Space, Time and Speed of Light in Einsteins General Relativity Theory.
Einsteins photons are not ponderable and thus must not be attracted by gravitation. Therefore, to be logical, his study in the
gravitational field ought to adhere to his postulate of constant speed of light. Studying the influence of gravitation on the
propagation of light, Einstein extends his formula (20) of the frequency-transformation ) cos (

c
1 from the
inertial field to the gravitational field. Einstein assumes again
c
h
(implying the constant speed of light as above-noted in
11.1) and 1 but contradictorily 0 to get a frequency-transformation formula ) (
2
2 1
1
c
h
+ approximately
suitable only for a weak gravitational field with
2
c h < < . The potential h renders the frequency
1
received by
1
S lower
than the frequency
2
emitted from
2
S . This seems to assert an absurdity, Einstein writes, Given a constant transmission of
light from
2
S to
1
S , how can another number of periods per second arrive in
1
S than emitted from
2
S ? Yet, He argues that
the gravitational potential may cause a time-asynchronism between
1
S and
2
S so that
2 1
t t and thus the same number of
30
periods n renders different frequencies. According to his argument, there must be:
1
1
t
n

and
2
2
t
n

so that
) (
2
2 1
1
c
h
t
n
t
n
+
i.e., ) (
2
1 2
1
c
h
t t

+ .
To explain why the gravitational potential causes the time-asynchronism, Einstein has to give up his postulate of the constant
speed of light. He argues that the time-asynchronism is caused by different speed of light:
2
S deems that photons spend time
2
t
to pass the distance h to arrive in
1
S , so the speed of light is
2
0
t
h
c
; but
1
S deems that photons spend time
1
t to pass the
same distance h , so the speed of light is
1
t
h
c
. Thus,
1
2
0
t
t
c c or, as he writes, ) (
2
0
1
c
h
c c

+ . In his general
relativity, the time-asynchronism makes the speed of light variable. In his special relativity, however, the time-
asynchronism originates from the constant speed of light !
Worse, the time-transformation formula (6) in the E-L Transformation is ) cos (

c
t t 1 , where the moving S -
systems time t and the static S -systems time t correspond to the moving receivers time
1
t at
1
S and the static light
sources time
2
t at
2
S respectively. Since

, so Einsteins contradictory assumptions of 1 and 0 lead to
) (
c
t t

+ 1 , corresponding to ) (
c
t t

+ 1
2 1
or to ) (
2
2 1
1
c
h
t t

+ because of his
c
h
. This is diametrically
different from the above equation ) (
2
1 2
1
c
h
t t

+ .
Moreover, his assumptions of 1 but 0 turn ) ( t x x into t x x . So, Lorentzs postulate is
also abandoned.
In sum, Einsteins general relativity theory betrays both postulates c c and ) ( t x x , which are the foundation
for his special relativity theory.
11.5. Einsteins Photoelectric Theory vs His General Relativity Theory.
According to Einsteins photoelectric theory, a photon has energy
2 2
h E and
1 1
h E at
2
S and
1
S
respectively. Here, h is the Planck constant. To avoid any confusion, we will hereafter denote the distance between
2
S and
1
S
as
H
. Einsteins ) (
2
2 1
1
c
h
+ leads to
2
1
2
1

E
E
=
2
1
c
H
+ .
According to his special relativity theory, on the other hand, a photons energy is
2
c m E
. Now, in his general
relativity theory, the photons velocity is
0
c at
2
S and c at
1
S so that his formula ) (
2
0
1
c
h
c c

+ leads to
2
2 2
0
2
2
1
1 ) (
c
H
c m
c m
E
E
+

. Einsteins general relativity theory contradicts his photoelectric theory. The former is false,
since the latter is true.
According to our new relativistic mechanics, a photon departs from
2
S with initial velocity c is accelerated by
gravitational

. Passing a distance
H
to arrive at
1
S , the photon gains . So, its velocity at
1
S is + c c
) (
c
c

+ 1
or
2
2
1
c
H
c c

+ due to
2
2
1 1
c
H
c

+ +
. Our frequency-transformation formula (22) in the inertial field is

cos
c c
2 1
2
2
+
. In case of

, ) (
c

+ 1 .
So, in the gravitational field, our frequency-transformation formula is precisely
2
2
1
c
H
+ and we have:
31

2
2
1
2
1
c
H
E
E

.
On the other hand, a photon at ) 0 , 0 (
2
H H S has non-potential gravitational mass
M
and mass-energy
2
Mc
.
Its total energy is
2
2
Mc E . At
1
S with potential H , the photon has potential mass-energy
2
c M
and possessed potential
energy H M 2 . Its total energy is:
H M c M E + 2
2
1
=

,
_

+
+
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
c
H
c
H
Mc

=
2
2
2
1
c
H
Mc

+
=
2
2
2
1
c
H
E

+
.
We again have precise
2
2
1
2
1
c
H
E
E
+ . Our general relativity theory is compatible with Einsteins true photoelectric theory.
Taking
2
2
1
H into consideration, we have
2
2
2 1
1
c
E E

+
. This is exactly our formula (29) in the inertial
field. Our special relativity and general relativity theories are consistent and they are compatible with quantum mechanics,
a coherent triad.
11.6. Precise Formula of the Red Shift in Strong Gravitational Field.
Since
2
2
1
c
H
c
c
+

and
2
2
1
c
H

, so
1

c c
c
c
or . The relative potential in
the gravitational field does not change the wavelength. In 5, we have proven that, the relative motion in the inertial field does not
change the wavelength either. This further displays the comprehensive correspondence between gravitational and inertial fields.
Our theory can precisely explain the sunlights red shift observed by us on the earth. Let the sun be
1
S and the earth be
2
S .
The sunlight departs from
1
S with frequency and velocity c . The suns gravitation decelerates the sunlight.
Correspondingly, the sunlights velocity and frequency received by the earth is reduced to
2
2
1
c
H
c c

+ and
2
2
1
c
H
+ (negative

). So the frequencys relative red shift is precisely

2
2
1 1
c
H

+

. Only when
2
c H < < , there can be approximately:

1-
1
1
]
1

,
_

,
_

+
2
2 2
2
8
1 2
2
1
1
c
H
c
H
2
c
H
.
Einsteins theory cannot explain the red shift in strong gravitational field. His ) (
2
1
c
H
+ leads to
2
c
H

, which can be used only in weak gravitational field
2
c H < < such as
2
c
H
6
10 2


for the earth in
the suns gravitational field.
Signals sent from a geostationary satellite to the earth must have certain violet frequency-shift due to the acceleration by the
earths gravitation (positive
7
10 248 . 6

H
2 2
/ s m
) so that c c > and > . The relative violet frequency-shift
is about
10
2
10 956 . 6

c
H

. Reversely, due to the deceleration, signals sent from the earth to a geostationary
satellite must show certain red frequency-shift.
11.7. Trajectory of Moving Bodies in Gravitational Field.
A body at a distance
H
from a center of gravitational mass W experiences a centripetal acceleration
2
H
kW
, where
k is the gravitational constant.

is irrelevant to the bodys gravitational mass. That is why an ICBM s heavy warheads and
light decoys flying in vacuum share the same trajectory and are undistinguishable. Similarly, a photon must behave like a
32
spaceship flying with c in terms of their trajectory. They obey the same kinematic equations and, bypassing over the suns
surface, their course must have the same angular deflection caused by the suns gravitational attraction.
Our new relativistic mechanics can precisely calculate the angular deviation (See Appendix B). It can also precisely explain
the perihelion motion of Mercury whereas Einsteins explanation from his general relativity theory is a sheer fabrication (See
Appendix C).
In short, our new relativistic mechanics provides the gravity with a mechanical interpretation instead of Einsteins
geometrical one. The warped spacetime in Einsteins theory of gravity seems questionable. Moreover, the ability of the gravity to
influence the light testifies a fact that the speed of gravitational actions transmission is much faster than that of electromagnetic
action. Therefore, the effort to unify gravitational and electromagnetic forces may be doomed to fail, let alone the grand
unification of all four kinds of force.
11.8. Black Hole.
Our theory is not only precise and logical but also applicable to any strong gravitational field. According to our frequency-
transformation formula (22) in the gravitational field, if the gravitational potential on the surface of a celestial body with radius
H
is as strong as -
2
2
c
H
, then the body is a black hole because its gravitation causes
2
2
1
c
H
+ =0. Indeed, the
escape velocity from a celestial bodys surface is H V
E
2 or
2
2
E
V
H
. So, the light cannot escape if c V
E

i.e.,
2
2
c
H
. This is the criterium for a celestial body to be a black hole.
On the other hand, if a celestial body with radius
H
has gravitational mass W , then the potential on its surface is
H
kW
H . If the potential at its surface is as strong as
2
2
c
H
, then
2
2
c
H
kW

i.e.,
2
2
c
kW
H . This is
exactly the Schwarzschild radius for a body to be a black hole.
Einsteins frequency-transformation formula in the gravitational field ) (
2
2 1
1
c
H
+ does not conform to the black
holes criterium. According to his formula, the gravitational potential must at least be -
2
c H to form a black hole ( 0
1
),
which requires
2
c
kW
H because of
H
kW
H , and vialates the Schwarzschild criterium of
2
2
c
kW
H . For Einstein,
the potential
2
2
c
H
is not enough to capture photons.
It is well known from the astronautic mechanics that a body with tangential velocity
H
kW
V
may have a circular orbit
of radius
H
around a center of gravitational mass W . This is the first escape velocity:
1
V
H
kW

. With
H
kW
V
H
kW 2
< <
, a body may enter an elliptic orbit with
H
as perigee. However, if V is not appropriately oriented, a
body with
H
kW
V
2
<
may fall back after having jumped up high or low. Only with
H
kW
V
2

, an outgoing body can

escape forever along a radial or oblique outgoing trajectory.
2
2
V
H
kW

is the second escape velocity.

The earths
1
V 7.9 km/s and
2
V 11.2 km/s. Anybody, including photons, must spend this amount of
2
V to escape from
the earth. With 7.9 km/s <V <11.2 km/s, anybody can be a satellite if its V is appropriately oriented. With ill-oriented V <11.2
km/s, anybody may jump up high or low over the earths surface and then fall back to the earth. So, our earth is a hole for
anybody with V <11.2 km/s . Generally speaking, anybody has its own characteristic
2
V and is a hole for all other bodies
with
2
V V < .
33
Similarly, a celestial body with
c
H
kW

2
is a black hole, which does not allow photons to escape. However, anybody
may orbit around the black hole, if the body has appropriately oriented velocity
H
kW
V
H
kW 2
< <
. That is why black
holes may have rings (satellites) Anybody with certain outgoing velocity can jump up over a black holes surface high or
low, no matter how small the velocity it has and how strong the black holes gravitation is. That is why black holes may have
hairs. Our theory allows super-light velocity. Any body with outgoing super-light velocity
H
kW
V
2

c may escape
from a black hole. This is why black holes may vaporize. There is no essential difference between black holes and all other
celestial bodies, including our earth (See Appendix D).
12 Discussions
12.1. Newtonian Mechanics, New Relativistic Mechanics, Einsteins Mechanics.
It is important to stress again and again: The essential difference between non-relativistic mechanics and relativistic
mechanics lies in that, the former can only be used for a subjects non-relative self-assessment of itself whereas the latter
must be used by a subject to assess other relatively moving objects. Self-assessment is non-relativistic. Relative
assessment is relativistic. Relativistic or non-relativistic is not determined by the velocity of relative motion. The
criterium: c < < non-relativistic and c relativistic is misleading..
Newtonian mechanics is not wrong, if it is used by a body to do its subjective self-assessment, no matter how fast the body
moves. Cosmonauts must stick to the Newtonian mechanics to assess their own state of motion during their space voyages, which
is so-called independent inertial self-guidance.
For a body (subject) to do relative assessment of another relatively moving body (object), it is necessary to use new
relativistic mechanics, no matter how slow the object moves. Especially, all the quantum mechanics must be based on new
relativistic mechanics.
Einsteins mechanics is wrong. Not only because the c c and ) ( t x x based E-L Transformation is invalid,
but also because Einstein has committed many operational mistakes in the development of his mechanics.
Moreover, between the speed of light and the time, only one of the two can be assumed constant in order to avoid the trivial
case
2 2 2 2 2 2
z y x z y x + + + + without relative motion. Einstein assumes c c so that t has to be a variable as
z y x , ,
are. Therefore, Minkowski can mathematically link these four variables (
z y x , ,
and t ) together by use of an
imaginary parameter of time ( it ) to create a four-dimensional space-time continuum:
0
2 2 2 2 2
+ + + ) (it c z y x .
However, our new relativity theory has proven the universal time-synchronism with the speed of light as a variable. It is
impossible to create a four-dimensional space-speed continuum by use of an imaginary parameter of speed of light ( ic ):
( ) 0
2 2 2 2 2
+ + + ic t z y x
.
Because, the space-speed continuum is a physical nonsense. So, our universal time-synchronism leads to the rejection of
Minkowskis concept of the four-dimensional space-time continuum which is indispensable for Einsteins geometrical
interpretation of gravitation.
12.2. Some Philosophical Comments.
Absolute and Relative are a pair of antithetical and interdependent concepts. Relative would be meaningless, if there
were no Absolute and, vice versa, Absolute would not exist without many Relatives. Absolute involves many Relatives
and the Relatives underlie the Absolute. One cannot say All things are relative. The All itself bears a tone of Absolute.
Endless time is both absolute and relative. It is absolute in terms of the universal time-synchronism t t . It is relative
because all events are ordered by timing: Before, After or Simultaneous. Moreover, the absolute time-synchronism t t
can be directly deduced from the relativity principle (See 2.2).
Boundless space is both absolute and relative. It is absolute because the length is absolutely constant with regard to any
reference system:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
2
1 2
2
1 2
2
1 2
2
1 2
2
1 2
2
1 2
z z y y x x z z y y x x + + + +
. It is
absolute also because the boundless and vacuous space exists independently and permanently by itself, no matter it is being sensed
or not. It is relative because all bodies are relatively located: Left vs Right, Above vs Below, Before vs Behind. It is relative
also because the values of a bodys coordinates depend upon the selection of a reference system.
Matter is both absolute and relative. It is absolute in terms of a bodys absolutely constant static inertial eigenmass and non-
potential gravitational eigenmass. But, it is also relative because the value of a bodys moving mass depends upon the bodys
relative velocity (which in turn depends upon the selection of a reference system) and the value of a bodys gravitational mass
depends upon the potential experienced by the body (which in turn depends upon the distance between the body and the
gravitational center).
Space, Time and Matter are three Absolutes. Exactly, the three Absolutes constitute the absolute system of units
(CGS), from which all units of mechanical quantities are derived. The three are independent from each other. Matter does not
34
cause any space-time warp. Matter, static or moving, and space have no influence on the universal time-synchronism. Space and
time are not material. Space, Time and Matter exist and count by themselves separately and independently.
It is unfair to criticize the Newtonian mechanics for its absolute and non-material space-time. The only shortcoming in the
Newtonian mechanics is its ignorance of relative moving mass aside from absolute static eigenmass, which renders it non-
relativistic. But, the Newtonian mechanics remains completely valid in cases of subjective self-assessment and must be used, for
example, by cosmonauts.
The boundless universe exists endlessly over time and does not have Singularity anywhere at any moment because there
is no such so-called Lorentz factor as
2 2
1
1
c

at all, which can lead to infinity or even imaginary quantities when

c . All physical laws fail at the Singularity, which is currently a rather popular saying in the physics community, is a sheer
nonsense.
Appendix A. Analysis of the Lorentz and Galilean Transformations
1. Constant Speed of Light Violates the Relativity Principle.
By use of the transmission of two successive electromagnetic signals between two relatively moving bodies A and B,
we can demonstrate that the postulate of constant speed of light violates the principle of relativity principle.
1.1. Acceptance of the Postulate of Constant Speed of Light.
Suppose B is moving away from A.
At a moment of
A
I
t , when the distance between A and B is
01
x , A sends the first signal toward B. Signal-I
spends time
1
t to reach the moving B at a moment of
B
I
t when the distance from A to B has become
1 01 1
t x x + so that
1
t t t
A
I
B
I
+ and

01 1
1
x x
t

. On the other hand, signal-I passes the distance
1
x with the
constant speed of light c and spends time
c
x
t
1
1
to reach B so that
c
t x
t
1 01
1
+


or


c
x
t
01
1
.
At the moment
B
I
t , when the distance between B and A is still
1
x , B instantly sends the received signal-I back to
A. Signal-I passes the same distance
1
x with the constant speed c and spends time
c
x
t
1
1
to reach A at a moment of
1 1
2 t t t t t
A
I
B
I
A
II
+ + .
At a moment of
A
I
A
I
t t + , when the distance between A and B has become
A
I
t x x +
01 02
, A sends the
second signal toward B. The interval between the two signals is
A
I
t . Signal-II spends time
2
t to reach the moving B at a
moment of
B
II
t so that ( )
2
t t t t
A
I
A
I
B
II
+ + . The distance passed by signal-II from A to B has become
2 02 2
t x x + so that

02 2
2
x x
t

. On the other hand, the signal-II passes the distance
2
x with the constant speed
of light c and spends time
c
x
t
2
2
to reach B so that
c
t v x
t
2 02
2
+
or


c
x
t
02
2
.
At the moment
B
II
t , when the distance between B and A is still
2
x , B instantly sends the received signal-II back to
A. Signal-II passes the same distance
2
x with the constant speed c and spends time
c
x
t
2
2
to reach A at a moment of
2 2
2 t t t t t
A
I
A
I
B
II
+ + + .
The interval between the two signals sent by A is
A
I
t . The interval between the same two signals received by B is:
( ) ( )
1 2 1 2
t t t t t t t t t t t
A
I
A
I
A
I
A
I
B
I
B
II
B
I
+ + + + .
Since


c
x
t
02
2
,


c
x
t
01
1
and
A
I
t x x
01 02
, so
A
I
t
c
t t

1 2
. Therefore,
A
I
A
I
A
I
B
I
t
c
c
t
c
t t

.
The interval between the two signals changes from
A
I
t at A to
B
I
t at B. The ratio of the change is:
35

c
c
t
t
K
A
I
B
I
AB
.
Since B reflects the two signals instantly back to A, so the two incoming signals interval
B
I
t is exactly the two
outgoing signals interval
B
II
t . Therefore,
A
I
B
I
B
II
t
c
c
t t

. On the other hand, the reflected signal-I and signal-II

reach A at the moment of
1
2 t t t
A
I
A
II
+ and the moment of
2 2
2 t t t t t
A
I
A
I
B
II
+ + + respectively. Therefore,
the interval between the two reflected signals received by A is ( ) ( )
1 2 2
2 t t t t t t t
A
I
A
II
B
II
A
II
+ + .
Since
A
I
t
c
t t

1 2
and
A
I
B
II
t
c
c
t

, so we have:
B
II
B
II
A
I
A
I
A
II
t
c
c
t
c
c
t
c
t t
+

) ( 2 1 2 .
The ratio of the change of the interval between the same two signals sent by B and received by A is:
AB
B
II
A
II
BA
K
c
c
t
t
K
+

.
According to the principle of relativity, the two relatively moving bodies A and B are on equal terms and none of them is
privileged.
AB BA
K K violates the relativity principle and testifies against the postulate of constant speed of light.
Moreover,
2
2 2
1
1

c c
c
c
c
K K
BA AB
reveals that, due to the postulate of constant c , the so-
called Lorentz factor sneaks into the c c based E-L Transformation.
1.2. Rejection of the Postulate of Constant Speed of Light.
At a moment of
A
I
t , when the distance between A and B is
01
x , A sends the first signal toward B. Signal-I
spends time
1
t to reach the moving B at a moment of
B
I
t , when the distance from A to B has become
1 01 1
t x x + , so that
1
t t t
A
I
B
I
+ and

01 1
1
x x
t

. On the other hand, signal-I passes the distance
1
x with
the speed of light c and spends time
c
x
t
1
1
to reach B so that
c
t x
t
1 01
1
+


or


c
x
t
01
1
.
At the moment of
B
I
t , when the distance between B and A is still
1
x , B instantly sends the received signal-II back to
A. Since B is moving away from A, so the signal sent from B to A has speed c with regard to A. The signal-I
passes the same distance
1
x and spends time


c
x
t
1
1
to arrive back to A at a moment of
1
t t t
B
I
A
II
+
( )
1 1
t t t
A
I
+ + . Since
c
x
t
1
1
and


c
x
t
1
, so we have
1 1 1
t t
c
c
t

.

Therefore,
1 1 1
2
t
c
c
t
c
c
t t t
A
I
A
II

+ +

.
At a moment of
A
I
A
I
t t + , when the distance between A and B has become
A
I
t x x +
01 02
, A sends the
second signal toward B. The interval between the two signals ai A is
A
I
t . The signal-II spends time
2
t to pass a distance
of
2 02 2
t x x + to reach B at a moment of
B
II
t so that ( )
2
t t t t
A
I
A
I
B
II
+ + and

02 2
2
x x
t

. On the
other hand, the signal-II sent from A to B has the speed c to cover the distance
2
x so that it spends time
c
x
t
2
2
to
reach B. Therefore,
c
t x
t
2 02
2
+


or


c
x
t
02
2
.
36
At the moment of
B
II
t , when the distance between B and A is still
2
x , B instantly sends the received signal-II back
to A at the speed c , not c , because B is moving away from A with a speed . The signal-II passes the same
distance
2
x and spends time
2
2
2
t
c
c
c
x
t

to reach A at a moment of:
( )
2 2 2
t t t t t t
A
I
A
I
B
II
+ + + + .
The interval between the two signals sent by A is
A
I
t . The interval between the same two signals received by B is:
( ) ( )
1 2 1 2
t t t t t t t t t t t
A
I
A
I
A
I
A
I
B
I
B
II
B
I
+ + + + .
Since


c
x
t
02
2
,


c
x
t
01
1
and
A
I
t x x
01 02
, so
A
I
t
c
t t

1 2
.
Therefore,
A
I
A
I
A
I
B
I
t
c
c
t
c
t t

.
The interval between the two signals changes from
A
I
t at A to
B
I
t at B. The ratio of the change is:
v c
c
t
t
K
A
I
B
I
AB

.
Since B reflects the two signals instantly back to A, so the two incoming signals interval
B
I
t is exactly the two
outgoing signals interval
B
II
t . Therefore,
A
I
B
I
B
II
t
c
c
t t

. On the other hand, the reflected signal-I and signal-II

reach A at the moment of
1 1
t t t t
A
I
A
II
+ + and the moment of ( )
2 2 2
t t t t t t
A
I
A
I
B
II
+ + + +
respectively. So, the interval between the two reflected signals received by A from B is:
( ) ( ) ( )
1 2 1 2 2
t t t t t t t t t
A
I
A
II
B
II
A
II
+ + + .
Since


c
x
t
02
2
,


c
x
t
01
1
and
A
I
t x x
01 02
, so
A
I
t
c
t t

1 2
. On the other hand,
1 1
t
c
c
t

and
2 2
t
c
c
t

, so we have:
) (
1 2 1 2
t t
c
c
t t

and
A
I
B
II
t
v c
c
t

.
Therefore,
A
I
A
I
A
I
A
I
A
II
t
c
c
t
c c
c
t
c
t t

+
2
) (

.
Finally, because of
A
I
B
II
t
c
c
t

or
B
II
A
I
t
c
c
t

, we have:
B
II
A
II
t
c
c
t

.
Therefore,
AB
A
II
B
II
BA
K
v c
c
t
t
K

.
The principle of relativity is observed and the Lorentz factor has no way to sneak into our relativity theory which is based
on variable speed of light.
2. Invariant Transformation between Two Reference Systems.
2.1. Invariance of Transformation Equations Themselves.
Strict compliance with the principle of relativity demands that the forward and the reverse transformations have identical
forms not only for a group of transformation equations as a whole but also for every individual trasformation equation in the
group.
2.1.1. Galilean Transformation.
The group of forward transformation equations is: t x x
y y
z z
t t
37
Due to the universal time-synchronism t t and the relative motions , from the forward trasformation
equation t x x can directly get its invariant reverse transformation equation t x x . So, the whole group of
equations and every individual equation in the group have invariant reverse transformations respectively.
2.1.2. Lorentz Transformation.
The group of forward transformation equations is: ) ( t x x
y y
z z
) ( x
c
t t
2

First of all, the forward transformation equation ) ( t x x individually leads to a reverse transfomation
t
x
x

, the form of which violates the invariance demanded by the relativity principle. Secondly, ) ( x
c
t t
2

alone gives a reverse transformation x
c
t
t
2

which violates the relativity principles demand, too. Thirdly, the solution
from the combination of the above two violators

x
c
t
t
t
x
x
2

gives

'

) (
) (
x
c
t t
t x x
2

. The denominator in the
second equations parenthesis is
2
c
, not
2
c
. That is why, in order to make the reverse group of transformation equations
invariant, it is necessary for Einstein to introduce a third violator of the relativity principle the postulate of constant speed
of light c c .
2.2. Invariant Transformation of Spherical Wave Equation of Light.
Spherical wave equation of light in the S -system and the S -system are:

2 2 2 2 2
t c z y x + +

(1)

2 2 2 2 2
t c z y x + +

(2)
2.2.1. Galilean Transformation.
The group of Galilean Transformation equations is: t x x
y y
z z (3)
t t

x
t c c
c c
2 2
2
2 1

+
It can do the invariant forward transformation from (1) to (2). The first four equations in the group (3) have their own
invariant reverse equations respectively. So, to achieve the invariant reverse transformation from (2) back to (1), it is necessary to
examine whether an invariant reverse velocity-transformation equation can be deduced. Actually, due to and
t x x , we can get from (3): x
t
c t x
t
c c

+ +

2 2
2 2 2 2 2
) (
or
) ( x
t c c
c c

+
2 2
2
2 2
2 1

.
Thus, we get an invariant reverse velocity-transformation equation
x
t c c
c c

+
2 2
2
2 1

. An identical reverse
transformation group does exist: t x x
y y
38
z z
(4)
t t

x
t c c
c c

+
2 2
2
2 1

(4) can invariantly transform (2) back to (1). Therefore, the Galilean Transformastion (4) completely complies with the
principle of relativity.
2.2.2. Interdependence of Lorentzs and Einsteins Postulates.
The group of E-L Transformation equations is: ) ( t x x
y y
z z (5)
) ( x
c
t t
2

c c
It can do invariant forward transformation from (1) to (2). As we have proven in 2.1.2., in order to get an identical reverse
transformation group of equations, it is necessary for Einstein to add his c c postulate to Lorentzs postulate of
) ( t x x . The two postulates, both of them violate the principle of relativity, are interdependent upon and indispensable
for each other.
Suppose Einsteins c c is coupled with Galilean t x x so that the forward transformation equations become:
t x x
y y
z z
c c
Placing them into (1), we can get from ) ( ) ( 2 1 :
2 2 2 2 2 2
t c t c x t x ) ( or
x
t c c
t t
2 2
2
2 1

+
.
Therefore, the forward transformatiom group becomes:
t x x
y y
z z (6)
x
t c c
t t
2 2
2
2 1

+
c c
can invariantly transform (1) into (2).
To do the reverse transformation of (2) back into (1), we must first deduce an identical reverse transformation group from
(6). Unfortunately, placing , t x x and c c into
x
t c c
t t
2 2
2
2 1

+
, we get:
t t x
c
t
c
t ) ( ) (

+
2
2
2
2
2
2 1
or
t x
c
t
c
t

2
2
2
2
2
2 1

) (
.
Taking
2 2
2
2
2
1
1 1

c c
into consideration, we have: 0 2
2 2
2
2 2

+ t t x
c
t

. Finally, the reverse

time-transformation equation is:
1
]
1

2 2
2 2
2
) ( ) (

t
x
c
x
c
t , which is totally different from the forward
time-transformation equation.
Obviously, Einsteins c c alone without Lorentzs ) ( t x x cannot do the invariant reverse transformation of
39
the spherical wave equation back from (2) to (1).
Now, lets examine if Lorentzs ) ( t x x alone without Einsteins c c can do the invariant transformation job.
In this case, the forward transformation equations are:
) ( t x x
y y
z z
t t
Placing them into (1), we can get from ) ( ) ( 2 1 :
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
t c t c x t x ) (
or
2
2
2 2 2 2
t
x
c
t
x
c + ) (
or
2 2 2 2
2
2
2 2
2 1 c
t
x
t
x
c + + ) (
.
Because of
2
2
2
2 2
2
1
1
1
1
c c

and
2 2
2 2
2
2 2 2
1
c
c
c
c

+ , we have:
2 2 2 2 2 2
2 ) ( ) ( c x
ct
c x
t
x
ct
c
1
]
1

.
Thus, the forward transformation group must be: ) ( t x x
y y

z z
(7)
t t
) ( x
ct
c c


in order to be able to transform (1) invariantly into (2).
Unfortunately, an identical reverse velocity-transformation equation ) ( x
t c
c c

cannot be deduced. Obviously,
Lorentzs ) ( t x x alone without Einsteins c c is unable to make an invariant reverse transformation from (2)
back to (1).
To sum up, either Einsteins c c or Lorentzs ) ( t x x cannot survive alone. They are interdependent and
must go together to constitute the E-L Transformation. Einstein claims that his E-L Transformation relies only on two principles
the principle of relativity and the principle of constant speed of light. It is not true. Actually, his E-L Transformation relies on
two postulates, his
c c

and Lorentzs ) ( t x x , and one principle the principle of relativity.
3. Lorentzs Length-Contraction Postulate Causes Wrong Formula of Aberration.
From the E-L Transformation (5), which contains both ) ( t x x and c c , we can directly obtain:
ct
x
c
c ct
x
x
c
t c
t x
t c
x

1
2
) (
) (
.
From the above transformation group (7), which contains only Lorentzs postulate ) ( t x x without Einsteins
c c , we also can directly obtain:
ct
x
c
c ct
x
t x
ct
c
t x
t c
x

1 ) (
) (
.
Since cos
ct
x
and

cos
t c
x
, so in both cases we have

cos
cos
cos
c
c

1
which is Einsteins wrong
formula of aberration.
From the Galilean Transformation (3), which contains t x x , we can directly obtain:
40
ct
x
c c
c ct
x
ct
x
c c
ct
t x
t c
x

2 1 2 1
2
2
2
2
+

.
From the above transformation group (6), which contains only Einsteins c c without Lorentzs ) ( t x x , we
also can directly obtain:
2
2
2
2
1 2 1
c
c ct
x
ct
x
c c
ct
t x
t c
x

.
So, in both cases we always obtain

cos
cos
cos
c c
c
2 1
2
2
+

which is our correct formula of aberration,
regardless of whether t t or c c is involved.
In short, Lorentzs ( ) vt x x always causes Einsteins wrong formula of aberration., regardless of whether the
transformation involves c c or t t . It is Lorentzs wrong postulate ) ( t x x to blame for having misled
Einstein to his wrong formula of aberration.
Appendix B. Angular Deflection of Light in the Suns Gravitational Field
Suppose a body (or a photon) has static inertial mass m and non-potential gravitational mass
M
. The body passes over the
suns surface tangentially with velocity

c
. The suns radius is
8
10 96 . 6 R
[m] and its gravitational mass is
30
10 989 . 1 W
[kg].
In polar coordinates,
2 2 2

+
r
, where r
dt
dr
r
and

r
dt
d
r are the radial and tangential
components of

.
Hence,
2 2 2 2


r r +
and

d
dr
d
dr
dt
d
dt
dr
r

.
Lets first analyze the issue in the Newtonian framework: kinetic energy
2
2
1
m E
k
, potential energy
r
kmW
E
p
, gravitational constant
11
10 673 . 6

k
[m
3
kg
1
s
2
].
The angular momentum and the total energy are:

2
mr L
(1)
and ( )
r
kmW
r r m E +
2 2 2
2
1

. (2)
At the point of tangency
A
(
R r
), the body has 0
r
and c

. The conservation of angular momentum and

energy can be expressed as: mcR L L
A
(3)
41
R
kmW
mc E E
A

2
2
1
. (4)
From (1):
2
mr
L

so that
,
_

r d
d
m
L
d
dr
mr
L
d
dr
r
1
2

.
Let
r
u
1
, so
2
2
2
2

,
_

d
du
m
L
r and
2
2
2
2
2
2 2 2
u
m
L
mr
L
r r

,
_

. Placing them into (2), we obtatin:

2 2
2
2
2
2 2
L
Em
u
L
kWm
u
d
du
+ +

,
_

.
Taking (3) and (4) into consideration, we have:
2 2 2
2
1
c R L
m
and
,
_

2 2 2
2
1
1 2
Rc
kW
R L
Em
so that

,
_

+ +
2 2 2 2
2
2
1
1 2
Rc
kW
R
u
c R
kW
u
d
du

.
Therefore,

,
_

+ +

0
1
1
2 2 2 2
2
2
1
1 2
r
R
Rc
kW
R c R
kW
u
du
d

,
_

,
_

1
1
1
arcsin
1
1
1
arcsin
2
2 2
2
2 2
Rc
kW
R
c R
kW
R
Rc
kW
R
c R
kW
r
.
Since 1 10 12 . 2
6
2
< <

Rc
kW
, so ( ) 1 arcsin arcsin
2

,
_

+
Rc
kW
r
R
. As r , we have:
2
arcsin
2

+
Rc
kW
.
It can be seen from the above figure, the angular deflection on the suns right side is
2

. So,
2
arcsin
Rc
kW
,
2
sin
Rc
kW
. Since 1
2
< <
Rc
kW
, so
6
2
1 0 1 2 2

. sin
Rc
kW
. The total angular deflection on both sides of
the sun is: 2
6
10 24 . 4

[radian]
874 . 0
. However, astronomic observation gives 1.75. The discrepancy stems
from that the observation is our relative assessment of the phenomenon whereas the Newtonian mechanics, particularly its
kinetic energy
2
2
1
m , is non-relativistic. An observer (subject) must use our new relativistic mechanics to deal with his
relative assessment of a bodys (objects) motion. In our new relativistic mechanics, we have moving mass
2 2
1 c
m
m
+

, momentum m and angular momentum

2
r m L
.
In a closed energy conservative system with the sun at the center, we must use our relative kinetic energy
k
E given by
formula (47):
) ( ) ( ) ( c c c m c c m c m m E
k
+ +
2 2 2 2 2 2
1 1
or
( ) c r r c c m E
k
+ +
2 2 2 2

.
At the point of tangency
A
, where c and
R r
, we have:
( ) ( )
2 2 2
1 2 c m c c c c m E
kA
+
and cR m L
A
.
On the other hand, the potential energy is
r
W M k
E
p

, where
M is the potential gravitational mass of the body.
At the distance of r h from the suns center, the gravitational acceleration is
2
r
kW
. Therefore,
42
2
2
1
c
h
M
M

+

2
2
1
rc
kW
M
+

.
Since R r at any point of the trajectory, so 1
2 2
< <
Rc
kW
rc
kW
. Hence, m M M and
r
kmW
E
p
.
Passing over the suns surface and flying to r , any body ought to lose the suns second escape velocity which is only about
618[km/s] c < < . Therefore, we have c and
m c m m + 2 1
2 2

anywhere on the entire trajectory. So,

r
W m k
E
p


2
. At the point of tangency A, we have:
R
W m k
E
pA


2
.
In the framework of new relativistic mechanics, the laws of conservation of angular momentum and energy can be expressed
as:

2
r m L

(1)
and
( )
r
W m k
c r r c c m E

+ +
2
2 2 2 2

. (2)
At the point of tangency
A
, we have: cR m L L
A
(3)
and ( )
R
W m k
c m E E
A


2
1 2
2
. (4)
From (1), we have:
2
r m
L

, so
,
_

r d
d
m
L
d
dr
r m
L
d
dr
r
1
2

.
Let
r
u
1
, then
2
2
2
2

,
_

d
du
m
L
r and
2
2
2
2
2
2 2 2
u
m
L
r m
L
r r

,
_

. Placing them into (2), we obtain:

f bu au
d
du
+ +

,
_

2
2

,
where
1
2
2 2
2 2 2

c L
W m k
a
,

,
_

2
2 2
2
2 2
c
m
E
c L
W m k
b ,
,
_

2
2 2
2c
m
E
c L
m E
f .
Therefore,
af b
b au
a
f bu au
du
d
4
2
arcsin
1
2 2

+ +



.
From (3) and (4):
Rc L
m 1

,
( )
R
kW
c
m
E 2
1 2
2

and

,
_

2 2 2
2
1 2
1
Rc
kW
R L
m E
;
so that
1 2
2
2

,
_

Rc
kW
a
,
,
_

2 2 2
1
4
Rc
kW
c R
kW
b ,
1
1
]
1

,
_

+
2
2 2 2
2
4
1
1
Rc
kW
Rc
kW
R
f .
Hence,
,
_

1
2 2
4
2
2
Rc
kW
R
af b .
Since 1 10 12 . 2
6
2
< <

Rc
kW
, we can obtain:

,
_

,
_

1
1
]
1

,
_

,
_

+ +

1
2 2
1
4
2 1 2
1
1
2
2 2 2
2
2
2
2
2
Rc
kW
R
Rc
kW
c R
kW
u
Rc
kW
Rc
kW
f bu au
du
arcsin ) arcsin( Ru
Rc
kW

2
2
.
43
Therefore,
,
_

,
_

+ +


1
2
arcsin
2
arcsin
2 2
0
/ 1
/ 1
2
Rc
kW
r
R
Rc
kW
f bu au
du
d
r
R

. As r , then
0
r
R
. Because of 1
2
2
< <
Rc
kW
, we have: ( )
2
2
arcsin 1 arcsin
2
arcsin
2 2

+
Rc
kW
Rc
kW
.
Finally, we get:
6
2 2
10 24 . 4
2 2
arcsin
2


Rc
kW
Rc
kW
[radian].
Total angular deflection on both sides of the sun is
6
10 48 . 8 2

[radian]

1.75, which matches the astronomic

observation.Our new relativistic mechanics has proven that the angular deflection is irrelevant to a bodys eigenmass and photons
behave as any ponderable bodies under the suns gravitational attraction. In short, the gravitational attraction is a mechanical
phenomenon. It does not warp the space-time. Einsteins geometrical interpretation of the gravity is unnecessary if not wrong. The
force of gravitational attraction is a mechnical quantity and can be interpreted within the mechanical domain.
Appendix C. The Perihelion Motion of Mercury
In 1915, Einstein published a paper on the Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Murcury from the General Theory of
Relativity. He writes: I find an important confirmation of this most fundamental theory of relativity, showing that it explains
qualitatively and quantitatively the secular rotation of the orbit of Mercury. We will show that his explanation is a complete
failure and, in contrast, our new relativistic mechanics can precisely calculate the perihelion motion of Mercury.
1. The Failure of the Newtonian Mechanics.
Its well known that the Newtonian mechanics cannot explain a planets perihelion motion. In order to compare the three
mechnics (Newtonian, Einsteins, New relativistic), however, we first study why the Newtonian mechanics fails.
Suppose a planet moves with velocity around the sun. In polar coordinates ( , r ) with the sun at the origin, we have
2 2 2

+
r
, where
dt
dr
r
and
dt
d
r

are radial and tangential components of respectively. According to the
Newtonian mechnics, the planets kinetic energy is
2
2
1
m E
k
, potential enegy is
r
kmW
E
p
and angular
momentum is r m L

, where W is the suns mass and k is the gravitational constant. The conservative orbital energy
E

and angular momentum
L
are:
r
kmW
dt
d
r
dt
dr m
E E E
p k

1
1
]
1

,
_

,
_

+
2 2
2

(1.1)
and
dt
d
mr L

2
. (1.2)
From (1.2):
2
mr
L
dt
d

, so
,
_

r d
d
m
L
d
dr
mr
L
dt
d
d
dr
dt
dr 1
2

. Let x
r

1
so that
d
dx
m
L
dt
dr
and
x
m
L
mr
L
dt
d
r

. Therefore, from (1.1) we have:

2 2
2
2
2
2 2
L
Em
L
W km
x
d
dx
+ +

,
_

. (1.3)
At the aphelion (
1
r ) and the perihelion (
2
r ), the velocities are completely tangential
1
and
2
. Therefore, the
conservative orbital energy and angular momentum are:
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
r
kmW
m
r
kmW
m E
(1.4)

2 2 1 1
r m r m L (1.5)
From (1.4) and (1.5), we have:

,
_

,
_

,
_

2 1
2
2
2
1
1 1
2
r r
kW
mr
L
mr
L

or
2 1
2
2
1 1 2
r r L
W km
+ . (1.6)
We also have:
1
2
1
2
1
r
kW
mr
L
m
E

,
_

or
2
1
2
2
1
2
2 1 2
L r
W km
r L
Em
.
44
Thus

,
_

+
2 1 1
2
1
2
1 1 1 1 2
r r r r L
Em
or
2 1
2
1 2
r r L
Em

. (1.7)
Placing (1.6) and (1.7) into (1.3), we obtain:
2 1 2 1
2
2
1 1 1
r r
x
r r
x
d
dx

,
_

+ +

,
_

. Let
1
1
1

r
and
2
2
1

r
so
that
( ) ( )
2 1
2

,
_

x x
d
dx
, we have:
( ) ( )
2 1

x x
dx
d
. (1.8)
Finally,
( ) ( )

,
_

2
1
1 arcsin 2 arcsin arcsin 2
1 2
1 1
1 2
1 2
2 1

x x
dx
.
Moving from the aphelion to the perielion and back from the perihelion to the aphelion, the planets orbit is a strict ellipse
without the perihelion motion: 0 2 2 . The Newtonian mechanics fails, because: (1) It is non-relativistic so that its
kinetic energy
2
2
1
m cannot be used by an observer (subject) to relatively assess the motion of a planet (object); (2) It does
not recognize the variable potential gravitational mass and deems a bodys gravitational mass constant.
2. Questioning Einsteins Explanation.
In his 1915 paper Einstein gives the following formula for calculating the perihelion motion:

( )
2 2 2
2
3
1
24
e c T
a

(2.1)
where denotes the perihilion motion per one round of orbit,
T
the orbital period, a the orbits semimajor axis, e the orbits
eccentricity and c the speed of light. For Mercury:
969 . 87 T [earth day]
6
10 6 . 7
[s],
12
10 791 . 5 a
[cm], 205631 . 0 e .
With these data, (2.1) gives Mercurys perihelion motion per mercury-year as
7
10 01 . 5


[radian]. For every 100 earth-
year Mercury makes about 415.28 orbital rounds, so its perihelion motion per 100 earth-year is:
08 . 2 28 . 415 10 01 . 5
7


[radian] 43 ,
which matches the astronomic observation, and Einstein declares his success.
Einsteins formula (2.1) comes from his formula: ( )
1
]
1

+ +
2 1
4
3
1 (2.2)
where is the angle described by the radius-vector between perihelion and aphelion,
1
1
1
r

and
2
2
1
r

are the
reciprocal values of the perihelion and aphelion radius-vectors
1
r and
2
r respectively.
According to Einstein, his (2.2) comes from ( ) [ ]
( ) ( ) ( )

+ +
2
1
1
1
2 1
2 1

x x x
dx
(2.3)
or, upon expansion of
( )
2 1
1

x
, he obtains approximately:
( ) [ ]
( ) ( )

,
_

+
+ +
2
1
2 1
2 1
2
1
1

x x
dx x
. (2.4)
Einstein claims that the integration yields his formula (2.2). This is a grave operational blunder! Actually, a correct
integration should be as follows:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )


+

,
_

+
2 1 2 1 2 1
2
2
1

x x
xdx
x x
dx
x x
dx x

( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )

1
1
]
1

+
+ +

2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 2

x x
dx
x x
x x
dx

45
( )
( )( )
( )( )

1
]
1

+ +
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 4
1

x x
x x
dx

( ) ( ) ( )
2 1
1 2
1
2 1
2
arcsin 2
4
1

1
]
1

+ + x x
x
.
( ) ( )
( )

1
1
]
1

1
]
1

+ +

,
_

+
2
1
1 2
1 1
1 2
1 2
2 1
2 1
arcsin arcsin 2
4
1
2
1

x x
dx x
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) [ ]
2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2
2

( )
1
]
1

+ +
2 1
4
1

.
Therefore, the correct integration of (2.4) yields:
( ) [ ] ( ) ( ) ( )
1
]
1

+ + + +
1
]
1

+ + + +
2
2 1
2
2 1 2 1 2 1
4 4
5
1
4
1 1

.
Mercurys
11
1
10 432309 . 1

[m] and
11
2
10 173847 . 2

[m].
2
2
c
kW
is a constant. The suns
gravitational mass
30
10 9891 . 1 W
[kg] and the gravitational constant
11
10 6726 . 6

k
[m
3
kg
1
s
2
] so that
3
10 9535 . 2
[m]. So, ( ) 2 ( ) ( ) [ ]
2 1 2 1
5
2

+ + +
7
1 0 365255 8

.
[radian] or
71.5 per 100 earth-year. It is far from the astronomical observation.
Einsteins (2.4) is an approximation from his (2.3), which in turn originates from the following equation obtained by him
from his general theory of relativity:

+ +

2
1
3 2
2 2
2

x x x
B B
A
dx
. (2.5)
Einstein writes:
1
and
2
signify the roots of the equation 0
2
3 2
2 2
+ + x x x
B B
A

and closely correspond to the

neighboring roots of the equation that arises from this one by the omission of the last term. This means that his (2.5) can be
approximately expressed as:
( ) ( )

2
1
3
2 1

x x x
dx
. (2.6)
Then, Einstein writes: Thus, it can be established with the precision demanded of us that
( ) [ ]
( ) ( ) ( )

+ +
2
1
1
1
2 1
2 1

x x x
dx
. (2.3)
This is again a questionable approximation, which requires:
( ) ( )
( )
( ) ( ) ( ) x x x
x x x




+ +

+
1
1 1
2 1
2 1
3
2 1
or
( ) [ ] ( )( ) [ ] ( )( )( ) x x x x x x + + + 1 1
2 1
3
2 1
2
2 1
.
This is impossible, unless 0 . However,
3
10 9535 . 2
[m] 0 > > . Moreover, if 0 , then (2.3) and (2.6) would
degenerate into the Newtonian formula (1.8) and the orbit would be strictly elliptic without perihelion.
To check Einsteins calculation, we have done a direct computerized digital integration of his (2.6). The result is:
2 1393133114 . 3 or
( ) 2 0.0045868434[radian] or 3928 per 100 earth-year.
The perihelion motion is negative in the backward direction!
Moreover, Einsteins formula (2.1) is dubious, according to which the perihelion motion 0 when 0 e . However,
if a planet moves along a circular orbit ( 0 e ) with neither perihelion nor aphelion, how can its orbit have any perihelion
motion ?
Mercurys orbit is not a strict ellipse. Thats why it has perihelion motion. However, Einstein makes multiple
approximations by use of the relationships among elliptic orbits parameters:
46
( ) e a r + 1
1
, ( ) e a r 1
2
,
( )
2
2 1
2 1
1
2 1 1
e a r r
+ +
.
The approximations cause the eccentricity e to appear in his (2.1). Actually, his (2.2) becomes
( )
1
]
1

+
2
1 2
3
1
e a

so
that he approximately obtains: ( ) 2
( )
2
1
3
e a

. (2.7)
Since elliptic orbits period
2 3
2
a
kW
T

, so
2
2
c
kW

2 2
3 2
8
c T
a

. This final elliptic approximation leads (2.7) to his

(2.1) with the irrational appearance of the eccentricity e in it.
For every round of its orbit (360 1296000

), Mercurys perihelion motion is just about 1. To deal with such a fine

quantity, it does not allow Einstein to do so many arbitrary approximations.
To sum up, Einsteins general theory of relativity cannot explain Mercurys perihelion motion. He has tried to narrow the gap
between his theory and the reality by one wrong integartion and many arbitrary approximations. His formula (2.1) is a
fabrication tailored specially for Mercury. That is why (2.1) fails to explain the perihelion motions for Earth and Mars. Einstein
was unfair to blame the small eccentricities of the orbits of these planets for his failure.
3. Explanation from New Relativistic Mechanics.
We study a planets orbital motion in a reference system with the sun at its origin. According to our new relativistic
mechanics, a body moving with velocity has moving mass
2 2
1 c
m
m
+

.
In relation to the sun, a planet has relative kinetic energy: ( )
2
c m m E
k

) (
2 2
2
1
1
1
c
mc
+

.
At the distance r , its potential energy is
r
W M k
E
p

, where
2
2 1 c gr
M
M
+

is its potential
gravitational mass,
M
is its non-potential gravitational mass,
W
is the suns gravitational mass,
2
r kW g is the
gravitational acceleration. Since m M , so we have:
r
r
mc
r c
kW
r c kW
mc
r c kW
r kmW
E
p

+

+

+

1 2
2
2 1
2
2 1
/
2
2
2
2
2
, where
2
2
c
kW
.
Therefore, the planets orbital conservative energy
E
can be expressed as:
) (
r
r
c
mc E E E
p k

+
+
1 2
1
1
1
2 2
2
or
r
r
c
mc
E

+

1 2
1
1
1
2 2
2
. (3.1)
A planets angular momentum is
2 2
1 c
r m
r m L

+

, where
dt
d
r

.
So,
dt
d
c
mr
L

2 2
2
1 +

or
dt
d
mr
L
c

2
2 2
1
1

+
. (3.2)
Placing (3.2) into (3.1), we get:
r
r
dt
d
mr
L
mc
E

+

1 2
1
2
2

or
r
r
mc
E
mr L
dt
d

1 2
1
2
2
. (3.3)
On the other hand, since
2
2
2
2 2 2

,
_

,
_

+
dt
d
r
dt
dr
r



and
dt
d
d
dr
dt
dr

, so
47

2
2
2
2 2
2
1
1 1

,
_

1
1
]
1

,
_

+ +
dt
d
r
d
dr
c c

. (3.4)
From (3.2) and (3.4) we obtain:
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1

,
_

1
1
]
1

,
_

,
_

,
_

dt
d
r
d
dr
c dt
d
L
mr

or
1
1
]
1

,
_

,
_

,
_

2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
r
d
dr
c L
mr
dt
d

. (3.5)
Eliminating
dt
d
by use of (3.3), we get:
2
2
2
2
2
2
1 2
1 1

,
_

+

1
1
]
1

,
_

,
_

r
r
mc
E
r
d
dr
c mr
L

or
2
2
2
2
2
1 2
1 1

,
_

,
_

,
_

r
r
mc
E
mrc
L
d
dr
c mr
L

.
Let x
r

1
so that
d
dx
r d
d
d
dr
r

,
_

1 1
2
. The above equation becomes:
2
2
2
2
2
2
1 2
1 1

,
_

,
_

,
_

,
_

x
x
mc
E
x
mc
L
d
dx
mc
L

or
2
2
2 2
2
2
1 2
1

,
_

,
_

,
_

,
_

x
x
mc
E
L
mc
L
mc
x
d
dx

.
Therefore, we have:

,
_

,
_

,
_

2
1
2
2
2 2
2
1 2
1

x
x
mc
E
L
mc
L
mc
x
dx
, (3.6)
where
1
1
1
r

and
2
2
1
r

.
For a computerized digital integration of (3.6), we need to know the expressions of conservative quantities
2

,
_

L
mc
and

,
_

2
1
mc
E
. At the apogee and the perigee, the velocity has only tangential components
1
and
2
respectively. The
conservation of angular momentum can be expressed as:
2 2 2 1 1 1
r m r m L or 2
2 2
2
2
1
2 2
1
1
1 1
r
c
m
r
c
m
L

or
2
2
2 2
2
2 2
2 2
1
2 2
1
2 2
1
2
1 1
r
c
c
r
c
c
mc
L

,
_

.
Due to
1
1
1
r

and
2
2
1

, if we denote
2 2
1
1
1
1
c
P
+

and
2 2
2
2
1
1
c
P
+

, then we have:
( ) ( )
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1

P P
mc
L

,
_

. (3.7)
48
Or
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
1 1 P P L
mc

,
_

(3.8)
On the other hand, from (3.1) we have the conservative quantity
2
1
mc
E
at the apogee and the perigee as:

2
1
mc
E
2
2
2
1
1
1
1 2 1 2



+
+
+
+ P P
. (3.8)
From (3.8) we have:

,
_

+
+
1
1
2
2
2 1
1 1
2

P P . (3.9)
Placing (3.9) into (3.7), we can obtain:
( )
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1 1
2
1

P P

'

1
1
]
1

,
_

+
+ .
or
2
1
1
2
2 2
2
2
2
1
1 1
1 P P

,
_

+
+
1
]
1

) ( + 0 1
1 1
4
2
2
1 2
1
1
2
2
2

1
1
]
1

+
+

+
+ ) ( ) (

.
Solving this equation, we obtain:

2
1
2
1
1

'

,
_

1
1
]
1

,
_

+
+
1
1
]
1

,
_

1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1 1
2
1 1
2
1

.
3
10 9535 . 2
[m],
11
1
10 432309 . 1

[m
1
],
11
2
10 173847 . 2

[m
1
] for Mercury. So,
2
P is
known. Therefore, from (3.7) and (3.8) we can calculate:
( )
2
2
2
2
2
1

P
L
mc

,
_

and
2
2
2
2
1 2
1


+
+ P
mc
E
.
Finally, the computerized digital integration of (3.6) yields 338 1415929113 . 3 . So, the perihelion motion of
Mercury is ( )
5
10 5154876 . 0 2

[radian] 0632698 1 . per one orbital round. In 100 earth-year
Mercury makes 415.28 rounds. Its perihelion motion is 0632698 . 1 415.28 44.
The result matches the astronomic observation. Our new relativistic explains the perihelion motion of Mercury correctly.
Appendix D. Black Hole and Dark Matter
Simple astronautical mechanics tells us: if a celestial body with radius
H
and gravitational mass W , then in case of
c
H
kW

2
any body (including photon) with outgoing velocity c cannot escape. This celestial body is a black hole and
2
2
c
kW
H is the Schwarzschild radius.
A spherold with radius
H
has volume
3
3
4
H . With gravitational mass of W , the spheroid has an average density of
3
4
3
H
W

. From
2
2
c
kW
H and
3
4
3
H
W

we can obtain
2
8
3

,
_

H
c
k

. Therefore, we can have the

relationship between a black holes radius
H
and its average density

:
H
[m]
3
1 0

6
1 0

9
1 0

1 2
1 0

[kg/m
3
]
20
1 0 61 1 .

1 4
1 0 61 1 .

8
1 0 61 1 .

2
1 0 61 1 .
Obviously, it is unnecessary for black holes to have high density. A gigantic spheroid with matters of very low desity can be
a black hole. For example, a spheroid with a radius of one billion kilometers (
1 2
1 0
m) but small density (
2
1 0 61 1 .
kg/m
3

49
which is thinner than water) can form a black hole. A water ball ( 000 1, [kg/m
3
]) with a radius of
8
1 0 4 H
[km] can
be a wet black hole!
There may exist two kinds of dark matter. We cant see black holes We also cant see matters moving away from us with
super-light speed. But, we can sense their existence because the gravitational force transfers much faster than the electromagnetic
force.
Current popular cosmology deems that the gravitational attraction causes all matters to collapse to a Sigularity of Universe.
The universe experineces a process from its being to none. Then, a Big Bang gives the universe a birth from none. Unable to
characrize the sigularity clearly and convincingly, the physics community has to declare All physical laws are invalid at the
singularity.
Our theory does not involve the Lorentz factor . There cant be infinitely large gravitational attraction to cause the
universe to collapse to a singularity. The universe is endles and boundless. Warp space-time, Time Tunnel, Worm Hole,
String Theory are all dubious concepts.
50