Euclidean Model of Space and Time

Full text

Journal of Modern Physics, 2018, 9, 1215-1249
http://www.scirp.org/journal/jmp
ISSN Online: 2153-120X
ISSN Print: 2153-1196
DOI:
10.4236/jmp.2018.96073 May 16, 2018 1215 Journal of Modern Physics
Euclidean Model of Space and Time
Radovan Machotka
Brno University of Technology, Brno, Czech Republic
Abstract
The aim of this
work is to show that the currently widely accepted geometrical
model of space and time based on the works of Einstein and Minkowski is not
unique. The work presents an alternative geometrical model of space and
time, a model which, unlike the current one,
is based solely on Euclidean
geometry. In the new model, the pseudo-
Euclidean spacetime is replaced with
a specific subset of four-dimensional Euclidean space.
The work shows that
four-dimensional Euclidean space allows explanation of known relativistic e
f-
fects that are now explained in pseudo-Euclidean spacetime by Einstein’s Sp
e-
cial Theory of Relativity (STR). It also shows simple geometric-
kinematical
nature of known relativistic phenomena and among others explains why we
cannot travel backward in time.
The new solution is named the Euclidean
Model of Space and Time (EMST).
Keywords
Special Theory of Relativity, Euclidean Space, Four-Dimensional Space, Time
Dilation, Length Contraction
1. Introduction
Albert Einstein introduced his concept of a mutual relationship between space
and time known as Special Theory of Relativity (STR) in his work
Zur Elektro-
dynamik bewegter Körper
(On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies) [1]. This
work was focused on solving then existing discrepancies between theories de-
scribing electromagnetic phenomena on one side and classical mechanics on the
other. By its nature the work is physico-mathematical and the issue of geometry
is addressed only marginally. This drawback of the original theory was elimi-
nated a few years later by Hermann Minkowski’s work
Die Grundgleichungen
für die elektromagnetischen Vorgänge in bewegten Körpern
(The Fundamental
Equations for Electromagnetic Processes in Moving Bodies) [2] which was fol-
How to cite this paper:
Machotka, R.
(201
8) Euclidean Model of Space and Time
.
Journal of Modern Physics
,
9
, 1215-1249.
https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2018.96073
Received:
March 28, 2018
Accepted:
May 13, 2018
Published:
May 16, 2018
Copyright © 201
8 by author and
Scientific
Research Publishing Inc.
This work is licensed under the Creative
Commons Attribution International
License (CC BY
4.0).
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Open Access

R. Machotka
DOI:
10.4236/jmp.2018.96073 1216 Journal of Modern Physics
lowed by his lecture from 1908
Raum und Zeit
(Space and Time) [3].
In his work, Minkowski connected space and time into one four-dimensional
continuum, later called spacetime or Minkowski space, and he defined its key
features. He introduced a specific pseudo-Euclidean metric for spacetime which
is called Minkowski metric after the author. It is usually written in the form
2 22 2 2 2
s ct x y z= ∆ −∆ −∆ −∆
(1)
where ∆
x
, ∆
y
, ∆
z
and ∆
t
are coordinate increments and
s
is the so called space-
time interval. This interval plays the same role in Minkowski space as distance
plays in ordinary Euclidean space.
Minkowski based his thoughts on Maxwell’s equations of electrodynamic field
and their intrinsic symmetry, which reveals itself particularly when the equations
are written with time taken as an imaginary quantity. Here the main reason for
the use of imaginary numbers in Minkowski theory and subsequent introduction
of the Minkowski metric can be seen. Using this metric Minkowski showed that
the Lorentz transformation can be understood as a rotation of four-dimensional
spacetime by an imaginary angle [2]. If a well-chosen coordinate system is used,
orientation of two spatial coordinates does not change during the Lorentz trans-
formation (they are invariant) and the transformation affects only one space-like
and one time-like coordinate. E.g. if coordinate system
S'
moves with velocity
u
with respect to coordinate system
S
in the direction of the axis
x
, the transforma-
tion (rotation) affects coordinates
x
and
t
, while
y
and
z
remain invariant1. In
this case the transformation can be written as
2
2
1
x ut
x
u
c
−
′=
−
,
yy
′=
,
zz
′=
,
2
2
2
1
u
tx
c
t
u
c
−
′=
−
(2)
where
x
,
y
,
z
,
t
are coordinates of an arbitrary point in coordinate system
S
and
x'
,
y'
,
z'
and
t'
are coordinates of the same point in coordinate system
S'
.
Minkowski’s geometrical interpretation of Einstein’s STR was great success. It
was quickly adopted as an integral part of the theory and as such, it was not
questioned for years. Moreover, Minkowski metric in generalized form known
as pseudo-Riemannian metric become fundamental part of General Theory of
Relativity. Some doubts regarding geometry of spacetime emerged with quan-
tum mechanics arrival in nineteen thirties, but no real alternative was found.
The problems with Minkowski concept of spacetime accumulated over years
mainly in connection with attempts of quantum gravity theory. The unsatisfac-
tory situation holds till now and it is reflected in many works of contemporary
scientists [4] [5] [6]. In recent years alterations of original Minkowski concept
using Finsler or Cartan geometry are proposed [7] [8], but with no remarkable
success.
For the whole time, Euclidean geometry was overlooked and relegated to aux-
1Symbol
u
will be only used for mutual velocity of coordinate systems, the velocity of other objects
will be marked as
v
.

R. Machotka
DOI:
10.4236/jmp.2018.96073 1217 Journal of Modern Physics
iliary roles, mainly in pedagogical tasks as a visualization tool [9] [10]. The au-
thor is convinced it was great fault.
The aim of this work is to show that Einstein-Minkowski solution known as
STR is not unique. There exists at least one other solution which corresponds to
our observations, which leads to the same mathematical formulas, but which
geometry is quite different. In reality, its geometry is Euclidean!
2. Assumptions and Methods
Let’s assume that physical space is Euclidean,
i.e.
the axioms of Euclidean geo-
metry hold in it. Application of such an assumption on the whole universe may
be difficult, but for our objectives it is sufficient to assume euclidicity of space in
some local scale, that is in some restricted part of the universe sufficiently distant
from mass bodies and their gravitational fields. In such a part of the universe, we
can imagine existence of two inertial coordinate systems with their origins un-
iformly moving each other. We will denote one of these systems as
S
and its axes
x
,
y
,
z
, the other as
S'
with axes
x'
,
y'
,
z'
. The coordinate time of the first system
will be denoted as
t
, the coordinate time of the other as
t'
. For the sake of sim-
plicity, we shall assume that the corresponding axes of both systems are parallel
and the origins
O
and
O
' of the systems coincide each other at time
t
=
t'
= 0.
Motion of system
S
' in respect to
S
holds in the direction of the positive semi axis
x
with the speed
u
.
2.1. Stationary Coordinate System
In further explanation we will assume existence of one outstanding coordinate
system called the stationary coordinate system. In this coordinate system
the
light propagates with the same speed in all directions
. Such a system will be de-
noted as
S
, speed of light as
c
.
We will assume that in other coordinate systems that are moving with respect
to
S
, the above claim is not fulfilled.
2.2. Time Measurement
In correspondence with Einstein, we will assume that time is measured by “ideal
clocks” and all such clocks give exactly the same results, if they are not moving
relative each other. Such ideal clocks could be designed also as so called light
clocks which measure time on the basis of motion of light pulse between two
mirrors. Such a clock clearly demonstrates the slowing-down of time flow as a
consequence of speed growth. The faster the motion of the clock with respect to
S
the longer the light pulse trajectory in one cycle and the duration of the cycle is
thus longer (see Figure 1).
2.3. Distance Measurement
Distances will be determined by means of transit times of light signals. This me-
thod assumes the light signal is emitted from point
A
at time
0
A
t
, reflected in the

R. Machotka
DOI:
10.4236/jmp.2018.96073 1218 Journal of Modern Physics
Figure 1. Light clock. Time of flight of light pulse between two mirrors depends on the state of motion of the clock. On the left—
clock in rest, on the right—clock moving with velocity v to the right.
end point of measured distance (point
B
) and received at the initial point at time
2
A
t
.2 The transit time is measured by an ideal clock which is placed at point
A
.
The relevant formula is
20
2
AA
tt
AB c
−
=
(3)
2.4. Clock Synchronization
In regard to coordinate time, we will assume, in correspondence with Einstein,
that in given coordinate system the time is measured by a set of mutually syn-
chronized clocks. A method described in Einstein’s earlier cited work will be
used for the clocks’ synchronization. The method uses light signals emitted off
clock
A
at time
0
A
t
, reflected at clock
B
at time
1
B
t
and received at clock
A
at
time
2
A
t
.
The method assumes that the speed of light is the same in both directions and
thus the reflection of the signal at
B
occurs in the middle of the time interval
bounded by the signal emission and reception at
A
. The midpoint of the time
interval is given by the formula
20
1
2
AA
A
tt
t−
=
(4)
Mutual synchronization of clocks will be done by setting the clock B in such a
way that
11
BA
tt=
(5)
The left part of Figure 2 shows synchronization of clocks that are at rest with
respect to
S
, the right part shows synchronization of clocks located on a moving
object. The results of both synchronizations are different. In terms of coordinate
time
t
,
i.e.
in terms of a stationary clock, the result of “synchronization in mo-
tion” (the right part of Figure 2) is incorrect.
2
On time values upper index regards to place, lower to event (instant of time).

R. Machotka
DOI:
10.4236/jmp.2018.96073 1219 Journal of Modern Physics
Figure 2. Light synchronization of clocks A and B, at the left: clock at rest, at the right: both clocks in uniform motion to the right
at speed
u
. Light signal speed with respect to the clocks in motion is variable (motion to the right with speed
c
−
u
, motion to the
left with speed
c
+
u
).
At the end of synchronization in motion, the clocks
A
and
B
will be synchron-
ous in terms of the coordinate system rigidly coupled with the object carrying
both clocks (system
S'
) (
clock_shift clock_reading clock_reading 0
AB B A
′ ′′
=−=
)
and time difference between events
A
1 and
B
1 is equal to zero (
11
0
AB B A
t tt
′ ′′
∆ =−=
).
The events are concurrent.
In terms of stationary system
S
the time
difference of the events
A
1 and
B
1 is
non-zero, it equals
2
11 2
2
1
AB B A
ul
c
t tt
u
c
′
∆ =−=
−
(6a)
i.e.
event
B
1 will occur after event
A
1.
As regards to reading of both clocks, for stationary observer the reading of
clock B will be always smaller than reading of clock A by amount
2
clock_shift clock_reading clock_reading
AB B A
ul
c
′
=−=−
(6b)
Clock shift is in absolute value smaller than time difference of synchronizing
events. It is result of different clocks rate. Clocks
A
and
B
moving with system
S'
are slower than reference clock in stationary system
S
(see time dilation in chap-
ter 4.1).
In the Formulas (6a) and (6b) the length
l'
is the distance between clocks
A
and
B
measured in system
S'
,
i.e.
in the system to which both clocks are at rest.
Violation of clock synchronization process is caused by different speeds of
light on its way to
B
and back. In consequence the relevant transit times are not
equal.
As can be seen the described method of clock synchronization can be used
even in a moving system where the light propagates by different speeds in dif-

R. Machotka
DOI:
10.4236/jmp.2018.96073 1220 Journal of Modern Physics
ferent directions, but the result of such synchronization differ from the result of
synchronization in a stationary system.
2.5. Assumptions and Methods—Summary
All assumptions and methods stated above correspond with assumptions and
methods of Einstein’s STR as he introduced them in his work
Zur Elektrodyna-
mik bewegter Körper
[1]. Einstein even uses the idea of “stationary system” in
the work, he just defines it differently—through the validity of “Newtonian equ-
ations”. In consequence both definitions of a stationary system are equivalent.
The only significant difference lies in the method of distance measurement. In
his work Einstein assumes usage of rigid gauges—rods. As will be shown later
(Chapter 4.6) both measuring methods, the one stated above and the Einstein’s,
are equivalent and choice of the method has no influence on measurement re-
sults.
3. Euclidean Solution
3.1. 4D Space Euclidicity Postulate
The basis for following considerations as same as for the whole Euclidean Model
of Space and Time (EMST) is a formula belonging to the Einstein-Minkowski
solution [3]
2 2 22 2 2 2
c ct x y z
τ
∆ = ∆ −∆ −∆ −∆
(7)
It is a variation of (1) that is valid in the case
22 2 2 2
ct x y z∆ ≥∆ +∆ +∆
(8)
Fulfilling the inequality (8) is demanded in order for ∆
τ
to be a real.
Equation (7) can be interpreted as a relation between an increments of coor-
dinate time
t
and proper time
τ
of a body that has moved uniformly between two
points in time interval ∆
t
, whereas coordinate differences of both points are ∆
x
,
∆
y
, ∆
z
. The given formula is valid for any object regardless if it is in motion or at
rest with respect to chosen coordinate system. The quantity ∆
τ
is an invariant of
the Lorentz transformation as well as
space-time interval
s
(
sc
τ
= ∆
).
The Euclidean formula equivalent of (7) can be acquired by a simple rear-
rangement
22 2 2 2 2 2
ct x y z c
τ
∆ =∆ +∆ +∆ + ∆
(9)
Formulas (7) and (9) are identical from a mathematical point of view but their
geometric interpretation is different. While the Formula (7) defines the Min-
kowski metric
sc
τ
= ∆
in four-dimensional spacetime with three spatial axes
x,
y, z
and one time-like axis
ct
, Formula (9) defines the Euclidean metric
ct∆
in
four-dimensional space with spatial axes
x
,
y
,
z
and
c
τ
.3 In the Euclidean con-
cept the quantity
t
is not one of space dimensions but a measure of remoteness
3Alternate notation
w
of the fourth axis will be also used in this article to highlight its space-like n
a-
ture. In this notation the formula (9) reads
22 2 2 2 2
ct x y z w∆ =∆ +∆ +∆ +∆
.

R. Machotka
DOI:
10.4236/jmp.2018.96073 1221 Journal of Modern Physics
of two points of space,
i.e.
the distance between them.
As will be shown further, four-dimensional Euclidean space (E4) can be used
as a basis of an alternative theory of space and time. On that account this space
will be one of the cornerstones of EMST, its first postulate. 4D space euclidicity
postulate sounds:
“Space is four-dimensional and Euclidean.”
To create a realistic theory which would comply with the mathematical aspect
of Einstein’s STR it is necessary to accept two more assumptions.
3.2. 4D Speed Invariance Postulate
It can be seen from Formula (9) that no object in E4 can be stationary. Every ob-
ject travels a distance
ct∆
during time interval ∆
t
,
i.e.
almost 300,000 km in a
second. This also holds for objects that are seemingly stationary or that move
with distinctly sub-light velocities. Motion of such objects takes place complete-
ly, or in the vast majority, in the fourth dimension, that is along the axis
wc
τ
≡
.
Our (three-dimensional) senses, as well as our (three-dimensional) measuring
equipment, cannot detect motion in the direction of this axis. The only way we
can measure it is using a clock connected to the object. Among others, the For-
mula (9) expresses a known relativistic fact that the larger the change of spatial
coordinates
x, y
and
z
in time interval ∆
t
(or more commonly said the faster the
object is moving) the slower the flow of its proper time
τ
.
Denotations “4D motion”, “4D speed4” etc. will be used in the following text
to distinguish motion in E4 from motion in ordinary three-dimensional space
(E3).
A new postulate as a replacement for Einstein’s speed of light invariance post-
ulate can be formulated with the use of 4D speed. This postulate is directly de-
rived from Formula (9). 4D speed invariance postulate states:
“In a stationary coordinate system all objects move with the same 4D
speed that is equal to the speed of light
c
.”
It should be noted that the postulate refers to the stationary system only,
i.e.
to
the system in which the speed of light is invariable and equal to
c
. This postulate
is an enhanced version of Einstein’s speed of light invariance postulate that
states: “Every ray of light moves in the stationary system with the same speed
c
,
the speed being independent of the condition whether this ray of light is emitted
by a body at rest or in motion” [1].
According to the 4D speed invariance postulate all objects travel the same
distance during time interval ∆
t
. Various cases for objects moving from point 0
at different speeds
v
are displayed in Figure 3.
3.3. Fourth Spatial Dimension Boundedness Postulate
The second assumption necessary for acceptance of E4 space as a basis for the
new model of space and time is the assumption of its limited width, or more
4Relation between ordinary and 4D speed will be described in detail in chapter 7.1.

R. Machotka
DOI:
10.4236/jmp.2018.96073 1222 Journal of Modern Physics
Figure 3. Uniform motion of objects launched from point 0. At the end of time interval
∆
t
, the objects are located on the surface of a four-dimensional hemisphere with radius
r
=
c
∆
t
. It is a hemisphere due to the fact that increments of coordinate
cτ
cannot be
negative. Motion of objects in plane
x
–
cτ
is plotted here. Speed of an object can also be
expressed by an angle
α
:
sin xv
ct c
α
∆
= =
∆
.
accurately limited usable width in the direction of the fourth spatial axis
wc
τ
≡
. Firstly I will clarify the reasons.
Experience teaches us that two object are in collision if these occupy the same
point of space at the same time. In ordinary three-dimensional space it corres-
ponds to an equality of spatial coordinates
x, y, z
and time value
t
. In a
four-dimensional space it would be natural to expect equality of all four spatial
coordinates with coordinate
wc
τ
≡
among them. It can be shown, though, that
in real world the collisions occur entirely independently of the value of
wc
τ
≡
.
Let us have objects
A
and
B
that are both stationary in the system
S
. From ob-
ject
A
light signal
L
was emitted towards object
B
, it was reflected there and has
returned back to
A
. On its way to
B
and back the light signal traveled a distance
of 2||
AB
|| in time
2
AA
AB
tc
∆=
. During this time the object
A
hasn’t changed
its “three-dimensional” position, thus
0
AAA
xyz
∆=∆=∆=
and according to
Formula (9) holds that
22 2 2
AA A
ct c
τ
∆=∆
or
A AA
c ct
τ
∆=∆
.
An increment of the
fourth spatial coordinate
c
∆
τA
of object
A
is equal to time ∆
tAA
multiplied by
speed of light
c
. On the contrary the light signal
L
travels the distance
c
∆
tAA
in
time ∆
tAA
and from Formula (9) it is clear that the increment of its fourth spatial
coordinate equals zero (
c
∆
τL
= 0). If the light signal was emitted from object
A
at
a point with coordinates
xA
,
yA
,
zA
,
cτA
then the instant of return had coordinates
xA
,
yA
,
zA
,
( )
AA
c
ττ
+∆
. On the other hand, for the light signal itself, its proper
time has not flown (∆
τL
= 0), its coordinate
wc
τ
≡
had not changed and after
its return it had its initial coordinates
xA
,
yA
,
zA
,
cτA
. In terms of
four-dimensional space, the light signal has returned to the initial point, but ob-
ject
A
is no longer present here. Thus the collision,
i.e.
the interception of the
light signal by the object
A
, should not take place. Physical reality, though, is
different.
Another example is shown in Figure 4. It shows two objects that went for-
ward from points
A
and
B
one against each other at the same time
tA = tB
. The
two objects move with different speeds. In case we plot their trajectories in plane

R. Machotka
DOI:
10.4236/jmp.2018.96073 1223 Journal of Modern Physics
Figure 4. Plot of collision of two objects, at the top: in plane
x
–
cτ
, at the bot-
tom: in case of existence of barriers.
x – cτ
we will see that they intersect at point
C
. However this point will not be
the place of their collision because they will not be present there simultaneously.
4D distances ||
AC
|| =
c
∆
tAC
and ||
BC
|| =
c
∆
tBC
are different which means that al-
so the times ∆
tAC
and ∆
tBC
are different. In fact the two objects collide at point
D
which corresponds to two separate points
D1
and
D2
in plane
x – cτ
. 4D dis-
tances ||
AD
2|| =
c
∆
tAD
and ||
BD
1|| =
c
∆
tBD
are equal in this case, which means
that both objects will occupy point
D
at the same time.
In order to explain such a strange feature of space, following assumption has
to be adopted, fourth spatial dimension boundedness postulate:
“Material objects are in the fourth spatial dimension limited to narrow
allotted region. This region is common for all material objects and does not
provide enough room for their mutual passing.”
This means, that the space and (elementary) particles of matter are
four-dimensional but some forces or barriers keep them in a narrow strip of the
space. The dedicated strip is very narrow, so the particles are unable to pass each
other in the fourth dimension without mutual interaction. Only three remaining
spatial dimensions are applicable. For the sake of completeness we should add
that, due to the concentration of all matter particles in a narrow strip of
four-dimensional space, all composite objects have one dimension significantly
smaller than the others. Thus, even though composed of four-dimensional par-
ticles, these objects exhibit only three-dimensional properties.
There certainly exists some physical explanation for the above mentioned be-
havior of particles but it is unknown to the author at this time. For further ex-
planation, such behavior of particles in 4D space will be thought as basic fact,
and as such it is not to be discussed or investigated any further. Instead, we will
focus on finding of appropriate geometrical model of particles motion.
3.4. Geometric Interpretation of 4D Motion
Let us create geometrical model of motion of matter particles in space E4. Basis
for our considerations will be three aforementioned postulates complemented by
five assumptions that can be considered natural:

R. Machotka
DOI:
10.4236/jmp.2018.96073 1224 Journal of Modern Physics
1) It holds direct proportion between particle’s 4D path increment and coor-
dinate time ∆
t
increment expressed by Formula (9).
2) 4D speed of any particle is constant in time and is equal to
c
.
3) Allotted region of space E4, where all particles are situated, is too narrow in
the direction of fourth spatial dimension
wc
τ
≡
to observe this dimension in
macroscopic experiments.
4) 4D trajectory of any particle is continuous,
i.e.
without gaps or jumps.
5) Particles obey laws of conservation of energy, momentum and mass.
Direct consequence of assumption 5 is:
6) Direction of a particle’s 4D motion is changing only when it is in the inte-
raction with force field, with other particle or with boundary of E4 space region.
In other cases, the trajectory is straight.
Let us describe 4D motion of a particle in uniform subluminal motion. For
such motion holds:
7) Projection of the particle’s 4D speed onto our ordinary three dimensional
space (E3) is ordinary (3D) speed
v
which is constant in time and less than
c
.
8) Projection of the particle’s 4D trajectory onto E3 is a straight line.
Using statements 1, 2 and 7 it can be stated:
9) 4D velocity component in direction of
wc
τ
≡
is non-zero and its absolute
value is constant in time.
In combination with statements 3 and 4 we acquire:
10) Due the fact that allotted region is narrow in direction of
wc
τ
≡
, the par-
ticle is experiencing oscillating motion. The sign of velocity component in this
direction is changing in time.
And finally from statements 6 and 10:
11) Direction of 4D motion is changing only on the boundaries of E4, the
change is abrupt a it affects only sign of the 4D velocity component in the direc-
tion of
wc
τ
≡
.
The above findings mean that 4D trajectory of uniformly moving particle
− is restricted to the allotted region of E4,
− is situated in a plane given by the direction of particle’s 3D motion and pa-
rallel with axis
wc
τ
≡
,
− is composed of straight, mutually connected lines,
− its vertices rest on the barriers bounding allotted region of E4,
− its straight lines form equal angle
α
with the axis
wc
τ
≡
, the angle is given
by speed
v
of the particle (
sin v
c
α
=
).
Such form of motion is shown on the lower part of Figure 4.
Definition:
Let us have a space E4 containing two distinct three-dimensional hyperplanes
perpendicular to the axis
wc
τ
≡
. These hyperplanes will be called “barriers”,
their distance labeled
w
(
max min
ww w= −
). Subset of E4 bounded by both bar-
riers will be called space E4-B (letter B for “bounded”).
Ones again, let us gather geometrical model of motion of a particle in uniform

R. Machotka
DOI:
10.4236/jmp.2018.96073 1225 Journal of Modern Physics
motion.
We have space E4-B in which particles of matter are moving by speed of light.
Trajectory of each particle is continuous and is composed of straight lines. Each
line forms an angle
α
with axis
wc
τ
≡
proportional to the speed
v
of the par-
ticle. Motion of the particles in the direction of three spatial coordinates (
x
,
y
,
z
)
is considered as unrestricted, while in the fourth dimension
wc
τ
≡
is limited
by existence of two barriers perpendicular to the fourth spatial axis
wc
τ
≡
. All
particles of matter are located between these barriers that constitute fixed boun-
daries of their motion in the fourth dimension. The distance
w
of the barriers
is constant, independent of the type of the particles, time and position in space.
As an inevitable consequence of laws of momentum, energy and mass conserva-
tion, collisions of particles with the barriers are ideally elastic, particles maintain
their kinetic energy (
i.e.
both speed and mass), 3D direction of motion and an-
gles of incidence to the barriers are equal to angles of reflection. Motion of par-
ticles in the fourth dimension has oscillatory nature. This oscillatory motion is
performed by individual elementary particles, not by objects as a whole.
Described geometrical model could also hold particles in arbitrary accelerated
motion. It is sufficient to drop some demands on particle’s trajectory as a result,
the 3D motion of particle is now no more uniform. 4D trajectory will now be
composed of lines which are no necessary straight, lay in one plane nor form
constant angle with
wc
τ
≡
.
3.5. Fourth Spatial Coordinate
In further explanation I shall distinguish between the value of coordinate
wc
τ
≡
and the actual position of an elementary particle within E4-B. The later
will be marked as
wB
. While coordinate
wB
is changing in a narrow range be-
tween
w
min and
w
max in a cyclic manner, coordinate
wc
τ
≡
grows with every
cycle by value of 2(
w
max −
w
min) (Figure 5). We have no means of measuring
coordinate
wB
directly but by using a clock we can measure increments of
wc
τ
≡
.
Both variants of fourth spatial coordinate
wB
and
wc
τ
≡
have their theoret-
ical importance. On one side coordinate
wB
gives the position of elementary par-
ticles in the space between barriers, on the other side coordinate
wc
τ
≡
con-
nects motion of particles with time. In terms of further explanation, there is an
important fact that quantity
wc
τ
≡
is not cyclic and thus it is suitable for plot-
ting of diagrams of object’s motion. Such a diagram does not correspond to the
real motion of particles in 4D space but it is much more descriptive than a plot
of a trajectory with numberless reflections from the barriers. A comparison of
the “real” motion between the barriers with a plot of “fictitious” motion in plane
x – cτ
can be seen on Figure 4 and Figure 5.
A diagram with axes
x
and
wc
τ
≡
is an analogy of the commonly known
Minkowski diagram. The main difference between them is that the coordinate
time
t
is not one of the coordinates in the
x – cτ
diagram but a length of a tra-
jectory. The
x – cτ
diagram also allows the display of the proper time
τ
which is
not possible in the Minkowski diagram.

R. Machotka
DOI:
10.4236/jmp.2018.96073 1226 Journal of Modern Physics
Figure 5. Two variants of plots of a particle motion in 4D space—bold: “real” motion
between the barriers, dashed: “fictitious” motion in plane
x
–
cτ
.
3.6. Geometric Interpretation of Time
We have described important features of E4-B space as well as nature of the mo-
tion in it. Now, let us turn our attention to the proper time. Proper time can be
defined as an increment in coordinate
wc
τ
≡
divided by speed
c
.
On the other hand, the proper time does not have to be understood solely as a
distance divided by speed; there also exists an alternate view. As a natural meas-
ure of time flow, the number of reflections of selected elementary particle from
the barriers can be chosen. The faster the particle is reflecting, the faster the time
is passing. Matter itself measures its time—each particle of matter is a ticking
clock. There is a direct proportion between the number of reflections of a par-
ticle
n
and a length of the corresponding time interval ∆
τ
. The proportion is
given by formula
( )
max min
c n w w nw
τ
∆= − =
(10)
4. Geometric Basis of Relativistic Phenomena
In the previous chapter we have introduced E4-B space as a replacement for
pseudo-Euclidean spacetime used in Einstein’s STR. In this chapter we shall
demonstrate the geometric basis of the Lorentz transformation and known rela-
tivistic phenomena of time dilation and length contraction.
4.1. Time Dilation
As stated in the previous chapter the particles oscillate in a narrow strip of E4
space confined by a couple of parallel barriers. According to the 4D speed inva-
riance postulate the particles move with 4D speed
c
in a stationary system
S
.
Such motion of particles is in principle identical with the motion of light in a so
called light clock. We have two parallel reflective surfaces and a particle moving
with the speed of light between them. The rate of the flow of time is given by
number of reflections of the particle from the reflective surfaces. The faster the
motion of such a clock in
S
is, the longer the path of the particle between reflec-

R. Machotka
DOI:
10.4236/jmp.2018.96073 1227 Journal of Modern Physics
tions and the slower the oscillation. The 4D path
c
∆
t
of a particle drifting to-
gether with such a clock at speed
v
is given by
22 22 2 2
ct vt c
τ
∆= ∆+ ∆
(Figure
6). Hence
2
2
1v
tc
τ
∆=∆ −
(11)
The formula shows that the time interval ∆
τ
measured by a “particle clock” in
motion will be smaller than the corresponding ∆
τ
interval measured by a refer-
ence “particle clock” at rest.
The above effect affects all particles of a moving object
i.e.
every particle of the
object behaves as a light clock. There is no difference between behavior of the
matter and light in this respect.
Time behaves the same as a particle clock or light clock. This results from the
direct proportion between ∆
τ
and the number of oscillations of a particle (see
the end of previous chapter). If motion of an object is slowing down oscillations
of all its elementary particles, it signifies time itself is slowing down. Thus all
clocks on a moving object are slowed down in their operation, no matter their
construction.
4.2. Transformation of Light Wavefront
Now we shall look at the transformation of space. A geometric model of the ref-
lection of light from an inner surface of an ellipsoid or sphere will be used for
this purpose. Such a pair of bodies was chosen because a moving ellipsoid and a
stationary sphere are equivalent bodies in terms of STR—they differ only due the
length contraction in the direction of the body’s motion.
Let us have a flattened rotational ellipsoid e' moving in stationary system
S
with velocity
u
(Figure 7). Semi axis in the direction of motion shall be denoted
as
d
, semi axis in the transverse direction as
b
. The two semi axes satisfy the
condition
2
2
1u
db c
= −
. The shortening of semi axis
d
is chosen in such a way
that it corresponds to the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction. It can be verified using
Figure 6. Particle clock. Left: stationary clock, right: clock moving with velocity
v
.

R. Machotka
DOI:
10.4236/jmp.2018.96073 1228 Journal of Modern Physics
Figure 7. A view of light reflection in a moving flattened ellipsoid e
'
as seen in a statio-
nary system
S
. Light emitted simultaneously from point
F
−1 successively reflects from the
ellipsoid: the first reflection occurs at point
A
, then the points of reflection gradually
move to the right—towards point
C
and further to point
B
. The reflected light reaches
point
F
1 from all directions simultaneously. The geometric set of all points of reflection is
a prolonged ellipsoid e with foci
F
−1 and
F
1.
the Lorentz transformation that in the view of system
S'
connected with the el-
lipsoid, it appears as a stationary sphere k with radius
b
.
Let us assume, that in the center of a moving ellipsoid (point
F−
1) there is a
flash of light at an arbitrary time
t
. The light spreads in all directions, strikes the
inner mirror-like surface of the ellipsoid and reflects. The light propagates with
speed
c
in respect to
S
and the ellipsoid itself is moving as well. The question is
which points of
S
are points of light reflection and where the reflected light is
heading.
It can be proved that points of light reflection from e' form a prolonged rota-
tional ellipsoid e with semi axes
a
(in the direction of motion) and
b
(in trans-
verse direction). The semi axis
b
is identical to that of a flattened ellipsoid e'. The
following formulas hold for the semi axis
a
and eccentricity
e
:
2
2
1
b
a
u
c
=
−
,
22
2
2
1
ub
c
e ab
u
c
= −=
−
Point
F
−1 is one of the foci of the ellipsoid e. According to a known property of
conic sections the reflected light will be directed to the other focus
F
1 while its
trajectory will be equal to 2
a
regardless of the place of reflection. Assuming the
speed of light doesn’t change due to the reflection (which corresponds with the
4D speed invariance postulate) all of the reflected light will reach focus
F1
simul-

R. Machotka
DOI:
10.4236/jmp.2018.96073 1229 Journal of Modern Physics
taneously. The transit time will be
2
2
2
22
1
b
ae
c
tcu
u
c
∆= = =
−
(12)
The formula shows that the transit time is also the time in which center of the
flattened ellipsoid e' relocates from focus
F
−1 to focus
F
1 (distance of the foci is
2
e
). That has consequences of great importance.
If an observer in system
S
sees the light being emitted and received in different
points of space (points
F
−1 and
F
1) and if he is aware that reflections of light off
ellipsoid e' take place successively, an observer, located in center of e' and mov-
ing with it, sees the situation differently. He witnessed the light being sent in all
directions simultaneously and returning from all directions to the initial point!
From his point of view, it holds
11
FF
−
≡
. Furthermore, if he assumes the speed
of light is independent of the direction,
i.e.
const.c=
, he inevitably reaches a
conclusion that the reflection of light took place on a spherical surface and point
11
FF
−
≡
is in its center.
The radius of the sphere can be determined by the observer from the transit
time. It holds
2r ct
′
= ∆
where ∆
t'
is time interval measured in moving system
S'
. This is measured using a clock moving with the system. According to (11) it
applies:
2
2
1u
tt
c
τ
′
∆=∆=∆ −
(13)
If ∆
t
from Formula (12) is substituted we obtain
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
b
ub
c
tc
c
u
c
′
∆= − =
−
(14)
and thus
2
2b
rc
c
=
or
r = b
(Figure 8).
The geometrical model described here leads to the same results as the Lorentz
transformation (call to mind the choice of parameters of the flattened ellipsoid
above). The moving flattened ellipsoid e' has transformed into a stationary
sphere k due to change of reference systems. The model is all-Euclidean (con-
trary to the Einstein-Minkowski solution),
i.e.
all used formulas were derived
using the property of Euclidean space.
4.3. Geometric Basis of Lorentz Transformation
Using this model, let’s try to understand a geometric basis of the Lorentz trans-
formation.
Firstly we have to notice that only one dimension of a body is changing during
the transformation. The changed dimension is the one in the direction of the
x
axis,
i.e.
in the direction of motion. The remaining spatial coordinates
y
and
z
, as

R. Machotka
DOI:
10.4236/jmp.2018.96073 1230 Journal of Modern Physics
Figure 8. Reflection of light in a moving flattened ellipsoid e′ as seen from system
S
′
moving with the ellipsoid. The observer is not aware that in his system the speed of light
is not constant and thus interprets synchronous return of light to initial point
11
FF
−
≡
as proof that the reflective surface has shape of sphere k with its center at point
11
FF
−
≡
.
well as proper time
τ
, is not changing. These coordinates perpendicular to the
direction of the motion are invariants of the transformation. Therefore, the Lo-
rentz transformation can be written in a modified form
2
2
1
x ut
x
u
c
−
′=
−
,
yy
′=
,
zz
′=
,
cc
ττ
′=
(15)
The discussion whether the formula for coordinate time
2
2
2
1
u
tx
c
t
u
c
−
′=
−
(16)
is a linear combination of formulas stated above or a separate fifth equation shall
be left for later (chapter 6.3).
It remains to explain how it is possible that the length of a moving object in
Euclidean space is changing. The answer is composed of two parts.
One reason is the different view on the simultaneity of non-coincidental
events. Events simultaneous in terms of system
S
are not necessarily simultane-
ous in terms of another system (see the method of synchronization of
non-coincidental clocks, chapter 2.4). It is easy to show that a flattened ellipsoid
changes its appearance in conjunction with a change of simultaneity definition
(Figure 9).
1) In the first case, we will determine simultaneity by means of stationary
clocks. The procedure could be as follows—in a pre-selected time
t
we mark the
position of the leading (
B
) and trailing (
A
) point of the ellipsoid on the
x
axis of

R. Machotka
DOI:
10.4236/jmp.2018.96073 1231 Journal of Modern Physics
Figure 9. Determination of length of moving ellipsoid. At the instant of coincidence of
points
AA
′
≡
the other terminal point of the ellipsoid can be either in point
B'
—if si-
multaneity is defined using coordinate time of stationary system
S
—or in point
B
—if si-
multaneity is defined using coordinate time of moving system
S'
.
stationary system
S
. The difference in
x
coordinates gives us its length in the di-
rection of motion. We can see that the ellipsoid is flattened,
i.e.
its length is
smaller than the transverse dimension.
2) In the second case, we use reflections of light from the ellipsoidal surface
for simultaneity definition. The reflections are simultaneous in terms of system
S'
(reflections of light can be used for synchronization of a non-coincidental
clock in
S'
). In case we mark position of the beginning and the end of the ellip-
soid on the
x
axis in the moment of the light reflection, we can see that the ellip-
soid is prolonged,
i.e.
its length is larger than the transverse dimension.
The reason for such contradictory results is the fact that in terms of
S
the light
reflects on the trailing point (
A
) of the ellipsoid sooner than on the leading one
(
B
).
It has to be pointed out that both methods of ellipsoid length determination
are correct. In both cases, we have marked positions of both terminal points of
the ellipsoid simultaneously. In the first case the simultaneity was in respect to
system
S
, in the second in respect to system
S'
.
It is explained in the above text that, due to the method of synchronization
used, the flattened ellipsoid in motion looks as if it were a prolonged one. But
the text does not explain, however, why the ellipsoid appears to be a sphere to an
observer in
S'
.
Thus we get to the second part of the answer. This is related to the speed of
light in a moving system. As stated in 2) the reflections from the surface of a
prolonged ellipsoid are simultaneous in terms of
S'
. This can only be explained
as the front of the light wave in
S'
propagates in the direction of axis
x
faster than
in other directions. To be more accurate—in a moving system the front of the

R. Machotka
DOI:
10.4236/jmp.2018.96073 1232 Journal of Modern Physics
light wave has the form of a prolonged ellipsoid with a larger semi axis
oriented in the direction of the system motion. The center of such ellipsoid is
moving along with the system
S'
. The speed of light in the direction of motion
can be determined by combination of Formulas (13) and (12)
22
22
2
11
x
a ct c
ctuu
tcc
∆
= = =
′
∆∆− −
(17)
as well as the speed of light in the perpendicular direction
2
y
b
cc
t
= =
′
∆
(18)
The ratio of both velocities is
2
2
1: 1 u
c
−
. Notice that
cx
is larger than the 1
speed of light in a stationary system. This is caused by clock deceleration in a
moving system.
Thus the light in a moving system behaves differently than in a stationary sys-
tem. Let’s assume that an observer in system
S'
is not aware of the dependency of
speed of light on the direction of its propagation. Due to the assumption of inva-
riable value of
c
he will consider the simultaneity of reflections from the body to
be a proof of its spherical shape. Such a claim will be supported by the fact that
the light reflects back to the point of its emission.
The second part of the mystery of transformation of a flattened ellipsoid into a
sphere is thus connected to the non-constant speed of light in a moving system.
If we look at the parameters of ellipsoid e, we will see that the ratio of its longer
semi axis to the semi axis in perpendicular direction is
2
2
1: 1 u
c
−
which is
equal to the ratio of the speed of light in direction of the longer semi axis and the
speed in a perpendicular direction. Both effects fully compensate each other and
they are thus undetectable by any measurement in
S'
. So nothing prevents an
observer in
S’
from accepting the assumption that the speed of light is constant
in all directions.
From a mathematical point of view the transition between the prolonged el-
lipsoid and a sphere is solved by changing the length scale of axis
x
. The unit of
length on axis
x'
will be chosen
2
2
1
1u
c
−
times larger than on axis
x
. This new
unit of axis
x'
assures that the speed of light in
S'
is direction independent and
the prolonged ellipsoid e transforms in sphere k. From a geometrical point of
view space undergoes an affine transformation.
Note: The statement given above that in a moving system the light doesn’t
propagate with the same velocity in all directions is related to the usage of time
t’
from the moving system and simultaneous usage of length scale of axis from a
stationary system. In the case of usage of corresponding quantities (times and
scales) the effect disappears. So it is undetectable in physical experiments.

R. Machotka
DOI:
10.4236/jmp.2018.96073 1233 Journal of Modern Physics
4.4. Transformation of Motion of Mass Objects
So far we have demonstrated that using the light an observer in
S'
cannot detect
that the lengths and the entire space are affine deformed in his coordinate sys-
tem. In other words, he cannot detect that the body from which the light reflects
is not a sphere but an ellipsoid. It remains to be shown that affine deformation
of a moving system cannot be detected by other types of measurements as well.
Let us investigate length measurements based on measurements of transit
times of mass objects moving with speeds smaller than that of light. These ob-
jects will behave the same way as light (with an exception of the speed of propa-
gation)—their motion will be uniform and their reflections ideally elastic. We
can imagine them as idealized tennis balls.
Our current model of sphere/ellipsoid has to be expanded by adding a fourth
dimension
wc
τ
≡
. The reason is simple: so far we have modeled propagation of
light. Light moves at speed
c
and proper time doesn’t flow for it. Now we will
explore slower motions and the
cτ
coordinate will acquire non-zero values.
Three-dimensional bodies—a sphere and ellipsoid—will be replaced by their
four-dimensional variants. However, these will differ relatively little from their
three-dimensional relatives. E.g. a four-dimensional flattened ellipsoid has four
semi axes from which the one oriented in the direction of motion is the shortest;
the remaining three are equal each other. Thus to describe the ellipsoid, it is
enough to know the length of its two semi axes—the semi axis
d
in the direction
of motion and the semi axis
b
in perpendicular direction. These quantities are
the same as those used to describe the three-dimensional variant of this ellipsoid.
We retain unchanged labeling also for the quantities of a prolonged ellipsoid
(semi axes
a
and
b
) and a sphere (radius
r
).
We cannot imagine given bodies as a whole. Regarding further explanation, it
is not a major drawback though. It suffices to neglect one of the dimensions of
the four-dimensional ellipsoid and it becomes an ordinary three-dimensional el-
lipsoid; if we omit two dimensions, we get a two-dimensional section of the el-
lipsoid.
Such a section will suffice for further explanation, because we will study uni-
form motions only. Applied to moving bodies such as a sphere or ellipsoid, the
plane of the section will always be chosen in such a way that it includes the cen-
ter of the body and the direction of its motion—the axis
x
. As a result of rota-
tional symmetry all sections of this type are similar—
i.e.
the shape of the section
is independent of the choice of its second dimension; it could be either
y
,
z
,
cτ
or
any other direction perpendicular to the direction of motion.
Let us conduct an experiment: Tennis balls were launched from a point that
does not move with respect to S. Each one of them moves in a different direction
and different speed. In the direction of motion of each ball a solid reflective pan-
el is positioned perpendicularly to this direction, so the ball is reflected back to
the launch point.
The distances of reflective panels from the launch point are set so that all balls

R. Machotka
DOI:
10.4236/jmp.2018.96073 1234 Journal of Modern Physics
return to the launch point at the same time. Let us suppose that in free space the
balls move uniformly and reflections do not alter their kinetic energy and thus
their speed. Now it is certain that reflections of all balls happen simultaneously,
i.e.
times of flight there and back are equal. Using the 4D speed invariance post-
ulate we determine that equal transit time ∆
t
means that the 4D paths of all balls
must be equal as well. In the moment of reflection all balls are located on the
surface of the four-dimensional hemisphere with radius
2
t
rc
∆
=
(see Figure
3).
Note: Mentioned hemisphere is of course a mere fiction as well as coordinate
wc
τ
≡
. As a consequence of reflections from the barriers the motion of balls
won’t be straight and the hemisphere will transform into a narrow object
squeezed between the barriers limiting motion in the fourth dimension. Incre-
ments of coordinates
x
,
y
,
z
and
wc
τ
≡
as well as the 4D paths of any objects
will not be affected by this transformation though.
Now let us place an unchanged device with the experiment so that it is in rest
in moving system
S'
. In terms of
S
it will be shortened in the direction of its mo-
tion (in correspondence with Lorentz transformations). The ratio of the new and
original length will be
2
2
1 :1
u
c
−
.
If we repeat the experiment described above, an observer in
S'
will see it iden-
tically as an observer in
S
had before. All reflections will be simultaneous in re-
spect to
S'
as well as return of balls to the launch point. The observer will be able
to verify simultaneity of reflections by means of clocks placed at the reflective
panels and synchronized using the light. He will not detect any deviation.
The observer in
S
, though, will see the course of the experiment differently.
From his point of view, the points of launch and reception of balls will not be the
same. Also times of reflections of balls will differ. On the other hand, he will not
question the fact that all balls were launched simultaneously and they also return
simultaneously. Using the 4D speed invariance postulate he will determine that
all balls travel the same 4D distance. Because they were launched from one point
and after reflection returned to another one, he will easily determine that all points
of reflection must be located on the surface of a prolonged four-dimensional el-
lipsoid. The points of launch and reception of balls are the foci of this ellipsoid
(or semi ellipsoid, if increments of coordinate
wc
τ
≡
on the way to the reflec-
tive panels will be regarded as positive and on the way back as negative).
Parameters of the ellipsoid can be determined from the balls’ travel time. For a
longer semi axis applies
2a ct= ∆
, for eccentricity
2e ut= ∆
. Given values can
be compared to parameters of the prolonged ellipsoid e created by reflections of
light—see Formula (12). They are identical!
4.5. Analogy between Motion of Mass Objects and Motion of Light
We have found that results of experiments modeling motion of light and balls do
not differ. What is the implication?

R. Machotka
DOI:
10.4236/jmp.2018.96073 1235 Journal of Modern Physics
Just the same way we have described motion of light in the sphere/ellipsoid
model by means of three interchangeable bodies—flattened ellipsoid, prolonged
ellipsoid and sphere, we can describe motion of balls. The only difference is
usage of a four-dimensional variant of the bodies. We have a moving flattened
ellipsoid with semi axes
2
2
1u
db c
= −
and
b
representing a moving device with
the experiment, sphere of radius
r = b
moving with
S'
representing a set of ref-
lection points of balls as they appear to an observer in
S'
, and a prolonged ellip-
soid with semi axes
2
2
1
b
a
u
c
=
−
and
b
representing a set of reflection points as
they appear to an observer in
S
.
Correspondence of all parameters of given bodies has a simple explanation, it
is result of equivalence of both types of motion. Whether we use the light mov-
ing with speed c or tennis balls moving considerably slower, the 4D path is al-
ways the same
4
2
D
d a ct= = ∆
. The only thing it changes is its projection to the
three-dimensional space.
If we plot motion of a light beam and a ball in corresponding cross-sections of
a four-dimensional ellipsoid we get two variants of the same picture (Figure 10).
The only difference is one axis label.
Figure 10. Trajectory of beams of light inside an ellipsoid (at the top) and trajectory of a
ball launched along the x-axis (at the bottom). The plots differ only in the plane in which
the motion takes place. Plot of a trajectory of a ball launched in random direction and
speed would differ only in the plane of motion.

R. Machotka
DOI:
10.4236/jmp.2018.96073 1236 Journal of Modern Physics
Partial conclusion: Results of length measurements based on measurements
of moving objects’ (photons, balls, ...) transit times transforms in compliance
with Lorentz transformation. They do not depend on the speed of the objects
used for length measurement. If the simultaneity of light reception in the
sphere/ellipsoid model led us to the change of the axis
x'
length scale, results of
all other length measurements based on objects motion will lead us the same
way.
4.6. Contraction of Rigid Rods
Only one hope remains for determination of real undeformed dimensions of a
moving body. That is measurement by means of rigid measuring rods. With
their help, is it possible to reveal that what seems to be a sphere, is a flatten el-
lipsoid in reality?
We must reply: no. The shape and dimensions of rigid bodies are given by
forces acting between individual particles of mass. These particles are not in di-
rect contact and thus action at a distance is responsible. Strong and weak nuclear
interactions act in the atomic nuclei, electromagnetic force between nuclei and
electrons shells as well as between adjacent atoms, and all is complemented by
gravitational force. All these interactions are, according to modern theories, me-
diated by exchange of mass particles (mesons, leptons, photons, gravitons).
These particles are in permanent motion and their interactions keep the dimen-
sions of rigid bodies unchanged.
How would the distance of two adjoining ions in a crystal lattice be affected by
motion of the whole body? Will it remain unchanged? On the basis of the tennis
balls experiment we must say no. The particles mediating interactions are only
“tennis balls”, in their nature,
i.e.
objects moving there and back with any speed
less or equal to the speed of light. Thus during the motion of objects in
S
the
distances between adjoining ions (atoms, molecules, nucleons, ...) are shortened.
Such shortening will have the same ratio in which the sphere moving in
S
had to
be shortened, so that it still appeared to be a sphere in view of
S'
. Shortening of
distances between ions in a crystal lattice will inevitably lead to the shortening of
the whole body. This shortening occurs only in the direction of the motion and
the shortening is real. A similar explanation of length contraction was sug-
gested by Lorentz in his work
Electromagnetic phenomena in a
system moving
with any velocity smaller than that of light
[11].
It remains to add the obvious—the same reason will cause that all bodies, not
just measuring rods, will be deformed the same way. The phenomenon also af-
fects liquids and gases which will change their volume.
5. Equivalence of Coordinate Systems
Let’s review conclusions concerning deformation of bodies and coordinate sys-
tems:
1) By means of observations in a moving system we cannot detect shortening

R. Machotka
DOI:
10.4236/jmp.2018.96073 1237 Journal of Modern Physics
of bodies which are stationary in this system. The bodies and measuring rods are
equally shortened which gives an impression that nothing is shortened.
2) As a result of length deformation of all measuring devices in moving coor-
dinate system
S’
a different length unit is used on axis
x’
than on the remaining
axes. Thus the coordinate system
S’
is affine deformed relative to the system
S
.
Affine deformation affects not only lengths but also angles which is why the de-
formation doesn’t reveal itself by any measurement inside the moving system. It
can be detected only if we compare results of measurements in two systems that
are moving each other.
3) Use of an affine deformed coordinate system prevents us from detection of
the directional dependence of speed the light propagates with. Variations in the
speed are fully compensated by deformations of rigid rods (compare Michel-
son-Morley experiment) as well as the coordinate system itself. The speed of
light in a moving system appears to be identical in all directions and it is equal to
the speed of light in a stationary system.
The above implies that no observation inside a moving system can detect its
motion. Neither speed, direction nor any other sign of motion can be detected.
This theoretical fact is supported by results of countless experiments and it stood
at the birth of Einstein’s STR. Thus in the real world the stationary coordinate
system cannot be distinguished from the others.
5.1. Relativistic Effects as a Result of Partial Geometric-Kinematic
Phenomena
Relativistic geometric effects (Lorentz transformation, length contraction, time
dilation, ...) are products of composite action of five fractional, relatively inde-
pendent phenomena:
1) Galileo transformation. This is a transformation between two coordinate
systems in Euclidean space. It solves transition from the stationary to a moving
coordinate system without considering relativistic effects. Its equations are
x x ut
′= −
,
yy
′=
,
zz
′=
,
tt
′=
(19)
2) Time dilation. The dilation of time causes a slowing down of clocks in a
moving system. The cause for this slowing was explained in chapter 4.1.
3) Rigid bodies contraction. As a result of this phenomenon a real shortening
of bodies in the direction of their motion takes place. The degree of this effect
depends on their speed in respect to the stationary system
S
. The shortening is in
the ratio
2
2
1 :1
u
c
−
and its cause is described in the chapter 4.6.
4) Different understanding of simultaneity of events. As a result of a different
outcome of clock synchronization in a moving system and in the stationary sys-
tem the results of length measurements differ in these two systems. If clocks
from a moving system are used all bodies seem longer in the direction of their
motion than in case of use of clocks from the stationary system. Prolongation is
in the ratio
2
2
1: 1 u
c

−


.

R. Machotka
DOI:
10.4236/jmp.2018.96073 1238 Journal of Modern Physics
5) Affine deformation of moving coordinate systems. A change in the scale of
axis
x'
causes an apparent shortening of bodies in the direction of their motion
in the ratio
2
2
1 :1
u
c
−
.
The partial phenomena described above are of a geometric or geome-
tric-kinematic nature. This nature is known for all of these phenomena for a
long time, but it is not widely accepted in the case of two of them. This concerns
items 2) and 3).
In particular situations not all of these phenomena have to participate. E.g. in
the Lorentz transformation only phenomena 1), 2), 4) and 5) take effect, whereas
the explanation why the length of a body, in terms of a coordinate system rigidly
coupled with it, does not change after acceleration is caused by the interaction of
phenomena 3), 4) and 5).
5.2. Relativity of Relativistic Effects
As is known, all relativistic effects are relative,
i.e.
they occur as a result of a rela-
tive motion of one system against another. Their significant feature is this: in the
case of an interchange of the reference and observed system the nature of ob-
served phenomena does not change. E.g. if clock
A
in motion in
S
is slower than
clock
0
stationary in this system it must identically apply that clock 0 in motion
in
S’
will be slower than clock
A
stationary in this system. Einstein’s STR has
postulated this relativity of phenomena; for the Euclidean model it is necessary
to prove it.
Let us have a clock
0
located at the initial point (
x
0 = 0) of a stationary system
S
and a pair of clocks
A
(
x'
A
= 0) and
B
(
x'
B
=
b'
) in a moving system
S'
. System
S'
moves in the direction of the positive semi axis
x
with speed
u
so that at first
clock
B
and then clock
A
will pass the stationary clock 0 (Figure 11). In the ex-
periment we shall try to compare coordinate time of the moving system
S'
(ma-
terialized by clocks
A
and
B
) with the time measured by stationary clock 0. In
further explanation I will judge time differences and simultaneity of events from
the viewpoint of stationary system
S
.
Clocks
A
and
B
are stationary in the system
S'
and they are mutually synchro-
nized in this system as well (
clock_shift 0
AB
′=
). Shift of the clocks from the
viewpoint of system
S
should be according to (6b)
2
clock_shift
AB
ub
c
′
= −
(the
reading of clock
B
is smaller than the reading of clock
A
).
In the instant of the passing of clock
A
by clock
0
(event “0
A
”) the time on
both clocks is equal to zero
0
0
clock_reading 0
A
=
,
0
clock_reading 0
A
A
=
. The
time of clock
B
is smaller than the time of clock
A
,
i.e.
02
clock_reading
B
A
ub
c
′
= −
.
Once before, clock
B
passed clock
0
(event “
0B”
). Clock
0
, stationary in
S
showed at that time less by
2
2
1u
b
bc
uu
′−
=
, clock
A
and
B
stationary in
S’

R. Machotka
DOI:
10.4236/jmp.2018.96073 1239 Journal of Modern Physics
Figure 11. Motion of clocks A and B along with the system
S'
. Left: instant of mutual
passing of clocks B and 0, right: instant of mutual passing of clocks A and 0.
showed less by
2
2
1u
bc
u

′−


(they are slower).
Thus clock 0 showed time
2
2
0
0
1
clock_reading
B
u
bc
u
′−
= −
, clock
A
time
2
2
0
1
clock_reading
A
B
u
bc
u

′−


= −
and clock
B
time
2
2
02
1
clock_reading
B
B
u
bc
ub b
uu
c

′−

′′

=−− =−
.

R. Machotka
DOI:
10.4236/jmp.2018.96073 1240 Journal of Modern Physics
Quantities
0
clock_reading
A
A
and
0
clock_reading
B
B
denote times on clock
A
and
B
in the instants of their pass by clock 0.
Time
2
2
00
00
1
clock_reading clock_reading
AB
u
bc
tu
′−
∆= − =
has elapsed be-
tween the two events (first and second passing of clock) in the time scale of clock
0
(system
S
), whereas in the time scale of mutually synchronized clocks
A
and
B
(system
S'
) time
00
clock_reading clock_reading
AB
AB
b
tu
′
′
∆= − =
has elapsed.
Time measured in the stationary system
S
is thus smaller than time measured
in the moving system
S'
. Any observer moving with system
S'
observes that
clocks in the stationary system
S
are slower than his own clock. This finding
corresponds with reality as well as with Einstein’s STR.
The relativity of other phenomena can be similarly proved. It turns out that in
terms of relativity all results of EMST are identical with results of STR!
5.3. Equivalence of Inertial Coordinate Systems
Even though the previous explanation was based on an existence of a “stationary
coordinate system” that differs from all other coordinate systems in at least three
aspects—the speed of light is independent of the direction of its propagation,
coordinate time flows faster than proper time of all moving objects, the length
scale of all axes is the same—we have to state now that such a coordinate system
is undistinguishable from other (inertial) coordinate systems. As a result of an
interaction of the five partial geometric-kinematic phenomena described above,
all systems look the same and no physical experiment can determine whether the
given system is moving or not. Thus we can state: Every inertial system be-
haves like a stationary system.
This fact can be considered as an equivalent of Einstein’s relativity postulate
which states “All inertial coordinate systems are equivalent as far as the laws of
physics are concerned”.
In the Euclidean model of space and time this fact is a result of the 4D speed
invariance postulate. Since we know that all inertial systems are equivalent we
can derive a new, more general statement from the 4D speed invariance post-
ulate that excludes the demand on system’s stationarity:
“In any inertial coordinate system all objects are moving with 4D speed
that is equal to the speed of light
c
.”
5.4. Note to Coordinate Systems
In four-dimensional space all objects are traveling at the speed of light, but the
same cannot be allowed for coordinate systems. First—such coordinate systems
cannot be inertial (as a result of oscillation in the fourth dimension), second—
time would not flow in them (as a result of traveling by the speed of light).
Physical coordinate system is always connected with a particular physical ob-
ject. All parts of this object are in the state of 4D motion but this motion is not

R. Machotka
DOI:
10.4236/jmp.2018.96073 1241 Journal of Modern Physics
significant for coordinate system definition. Only the object’s position and its
state of motion in ordinary three-dimensional space are significant. This posi-
tion and state of motion are a projection of 4D position and 4D motion into
three-dimensional space. In reality the projection is done by simply omitting the
fourth dimension. In this work coordinate systems are always connected with
the projection of a chosen object into three-dimensional space and do not move
in the fourth dimension.
6. Space and Time
6.1. Number of Dimensions
This work assumes an existence of four-dimensional Euclidean space E4-R which
replaces the four-dimensional pseudo-Euclidean spacetime of Einstein-Minkowski
solution. In the Euclidean solution, it is necessary to decide whether to consider
time as an independent quantity,
i.e.
a fifth dimension of “Euclidean spacetime”
or merely as a function of spatial coordinates. If we specify position of an object
in E4 by its spatial coordinates
x, y, z
and
wc
τ
≡
, the coordinate time remains
still unknown. E.g. if all four coordinates of two objects are identical we are still
unable to decide whether these two objects are in collision or not (see point
C
on
Figure 4). The situation will not improve even if we replace the
cτ
coordinate
with coordinate
w
. It would seem that coordinate time
t
cannot be determined
from spatial coordinates and thus it is an independent quantity—it is a fifth di-
mension of our world.
On the other hand the Formula (9) relates an increment of coordinate time ∆
t
to the change of spatial coordinates
x, y, z
and
wc
τ
≡
. However, the formula
can be applied to uniform translatory motion only. Nevertheless, its validity can
be extended to a motion not maintaining direction nor velocity by simply divid-
ing such a motion into infinitesimally small parts in which the motion is uni-
form. Then, the increment of time is
22 2 2 2 2 2
ct x y z c
δ δ δ δ δτ
=+ ++
(20)
Through integration of this formula over the motion’s trajectory we can de-
termine the time interval separating end of the motion from its beginning. This
interval is, of course, directly proportional to the length of 4D trajectory.
In case of a change of the reference coordinate system (Lorentz boost) the in-
crements of time
δt
transform in correspondence with Formula (20). In the new
coordinate system the coordinate increments in axes
x
,
y
and
z
will be generally
different, while the increments in
cτ
axis will not change.
Let us assume that two objects were located at point
A
in time
t
0,
i.e.
they were
in coincidence, which is expressed by equality of coordinates
x, y, z
. Then they
moved along different trajectories and in time
t1
they met again at point
B
. The
necessary condition of a second encounter is equality of lengths of their 4D tra-
jectories marked by the end points
A
and
B
,
( ) ( )
2
44
1
DD
d AB d AB=
.
If the situation described above is expressed in another coordinate system
which moves with respect to the original one, the coordinates of points
A
and
B

R. Machotka
DOI:
10.4236/jmp.2018.96073 1242 Journal of Modern Physics
will change, as well as the coordinate increments and 4D paths of both motions.
However, even after the transformation, the equality
( ) ( )
2
44
1
DD
d AB d AB
′′
=
will
apply,
i.e.
both trajectories transform in such a way that the lengths will be equal
again. This is true, of course, only in the case that both trajectories share their
initial and end points.
The possibility of determination of increments of coordinate time by formulas
(9) and (20) is not only restricted to real motions. It can be also used for imagi-
nary motions. The only two conditions are the unambiguous definition of the
motion’s trajectory and the fact that such a motion can be accomplished. The
latter condition is expressed by inequality Formula (8) and can be interpreted as
a requirement that speed of the motion cannot exceed the speed of light
c
.
As a conclusion we can state that in all such cases where a time-like relation
between the events exists,
i.e.
in cases in which it is possible to accomplish a mo-
tion originating in one event and ending in the other, the increment of coordi-
nate time is a function of the motion’s trajectory. In other words, it is a function
of the object’s coordinates change over the time. In such cases where the time
relation between events doesn’t exist any functional relation between coordinate
time and coordinates is non-existent as well. Mechanical usage of Formula (9)
leads to the necessity of introduction of an imaginary proper time. Such a quan-
tity, however, has no physical meaning and so such an approach has to be re-
jected.
6.2. Definition of Space
From the above consideration we can see apparent theoretical difficulty in defi-
nition of space and objects in it as a physical reality without any connection to
the past. Such an approach would necessitate introduction of a fifth independent
coordinate—coordinate time, while according to other considerations this coor-
dinate cannot be independent. Thus in terms of presented Euclidean theory of
space and time it is necessary to define space as a set of objects that has traveled
to their current positions by unknown, but quite specific, trajectories. Existence
of such trajectories is necessary for time location of those objects as well as
events which the objects are participants. The formulas (9) and (20) allow no
more than determination of time increments from some given event in the ob-
ject’s history. So for an evaluation of equality of coordinate times of two objects
which are in the same point of space it is necessary to accept an important as-
sumption, —these two objects have met at least once in their past. This assump-
tion can be ensured in the only possible way—all the trajectories have a common
initial point,
i.e.
once in the past all the objects simultaneously emerged from
one common origin.
6.3. Relativistic Transformation of Space
Relativistic transformation of four-dimensional Euclidean space needs to be
primarily understood as a transformation of trajectories. If a trajectory is speci-

R. Machotka
DOI:
10.4236/jmp.2018.96073 1243 Journal of Modern Physics
fied in system
S
e.g. in a form of a sequence of trajectory vertex points given by
their coordinates in E4, partial increments of time ∆
ti
can be determined using
Formula (9) and the overall duration of the motion ∆
t
as their sum. Transforma-
tion of the trajectory vertex coordinates to the system
S'
is given by four equa-
tions of a modified Lorentz transformation (15), while duration of the motion
∆
t'
can be determined by the same procedure as in the system
S
. So the Formula
(16) is redundant and can be proved that it is a linear combination of formulas
(15) and (9). Given explanation assumes that the origins of systems
S
and
S'
are
identical in time
t = t'
= 0 and they are coincident with one terminal point of the
trajectory. Then
t
= ∆
t
and
t'
= ∆
t'
. A convenient choice of coordinate systems
can fulfil the assumption.
A different situation arises in the case of transformation of events that are not
connected by any trajectory and such a trajectory cannot even be constructed
additionally. In this case the Formula (9) cannot be used and thus we are left
with Formulas (15) and (16) for the transformation,
i.e.
Lorentz transformation
expanded to five equations. Transformed quantities are
x
,
y
,
z
,
cτ
and
t
. It is ne-
cessary to say that in reality the coordinate
wc
τ
≡
is unknown, but it does not
pose a problem as the transformation can be done without it. The value of
wc
τ
≡
remains unchanged during the transformation and has no effect on the
transformation of remaining coordinates.
7. Velocity, Inertia, Energy
7.1. Velocity of Motion
Expanding the concept of motion to the fourth spatial dimension leads to the
necessity of expanding velocity notation as well. We shall go forth from a nota-
tion of velocity vector in ordinary three-dimensional space. That is denoted
v
(or
u
if it refers to the mutual velocity of two coordinate systems). In the case of 4D
velocity we choose notation
v
4
D
(notation
u
4
D
has no sense since coordinate sys-
tems can move only in three dimensions—see chapter 5.4). For size of a vector,
i.e.
for scalar quantity, we will use notation
v, u, v4D
. Velocity can be decomposed
into individual components
vx, vy, vz, vw
in the direction of coordinate axes. In
Euclidean space simple formulas apply
222
xyz
v vvv= ++
(21)
2222
4D xyz w
v vvvv c= +++ =
(22)
The equality of
v4D
and
c
is a result of the 4D speed invariance postulate.
Meaning of components
vx, vy, vz
is clear, component
vw
is new and it ex-
presses speed of motion in the fourth dimension. Its value is given by formula
2
2
1
w
cv
vc
tc
τ
∆
= = −
∆
(23)
Quantity ∆
τ
here denotes the moving body’s proper time. It generally flows
slower than time ∆
t
of used coordinate system and so
w
vc≤
. With increasing

R. Machotka
DOI:
10.4236/jmp.2018.96073 1244 Journal of Modern Physics
“3D” speed
v
, the component
vw
will naturally decrease.
In further explanations we will study motion in the plane
x – cτ
thus
vy = vz
=
0,
v = vx
(see Figure 12).
Speed is commonly defined by formula
x
vt
∆
=∆
(24)
i.e.
as a trajectory divided by time. Given formula holds for uniform motion in
the direction of axis
x
and it is depicted for various velocities in Figure 3. The
figure clearly shows why the speed defined by Formula (24) cannot be larger
than the speed of light
c
. The cause is the fact that ∆
x
and ∆
t
are not two inde-
pendent quantities but a cathetus and hypotenuse in a right-angled triangle. For
obvious geometric reasons the cathetus can never be longer than the hypotenuse.
The same is expressed by Formula (22). The question arises whether definition
of speed using Formula (24) is appropriate.
Let us introduce an alternative definition of speed by replacing coordinate
time
t
by proper time
τ
i
x
v
τ
∆
=∆
(25)
This type of speed will be denoted as “indicated speed”5 in further text. Rela-
tion of indicated speed to “classic speed” is
2
2
1
i
v
v
v
c
=
−
(26)
Figure 12. Geometric representation of classic and indicated speed in plane
x
−
cτ
.
5This speed
should be shown by indicators on a spaceship in interstellar space so that the crew would
know what distance would be covered in a day and thus how long the travel to the destination would
take.

R. Machotka
DOI:
10.4236/jmp.2018.96073 1245 Journal of Modern Physics
i.e.
indicated speed is generally larger. For
v =
0 is
vi
= 0, for
v = c
is
vi
= ∞6
.
Analogous to the classic speeds we now introduce four-dimensional notations
for indicated speeds and their coordinate components. Thus formulas
222
,,,i ix iy iz
v vvv
= ++
(27)
22 22
,4 , , , ,i D ix iy iz iw
v vvvv= +++
(28)
correspond to Formulas (21) and (22).
The 4D speed invariance postulate does not apply for indicated speeds. On the
contrary, it holds
,iw
vc=
,
i.e.
“indicated speed in the fourth dimension” is con-
stant and does not change during relativistic transformation. It also holds that
vi,y
and
vi,z
do not change in the case of Lorentz boost in the direction of
x
axis.
7.2. Inertia and Energy
Now we will demonstrate how our understanding of inertia and energy will
change should we accept the idea of four-dimensional Euclidean space in com-
bination with indicated speeds.
Let us start from classic relativistic formulas for inertia and energy. It is
known that a four-vector of inertia consists of three components of inertia
px py,
pz
and from the total energy of body
E
. It holds
0
2
2
1
x
x
mv
p
v
c
=
−
,
0
2
2
1
y
y
mv
p
v
c
=
−
,
0
2
2
1
z
z
mv
p
v
c
=
−
,
2
0
2
2
1
mc
E
v
c
=
−
(29)
and also the formula
2 22 22 22 24
0xyz
E pc pc pc mc−−−=
(30)
Here
2
00
E mc=
is the so-called rest energy of the body. This is, as well as rest
mass
m
0, an invariant of the Lorentz transformation.
Components of four-vector transform similarly to coordinates of spacetime,
i.e.
:
2
2
1
x
x
uE
pcc
p
u
c
−
′=
−
,
yy
pp
′=
,
zz
pp
′=
,
2
2
1
x
Eu
p
Ecc
cu
c
−
′=
−
(31)
Given formulas are an analogy of the partial formulas of Lorentz transforma-
tion (2).
Formula (30) can be transformed to the Euclidean form the same way we have
transformed Formula (7) to the form (9). We get
2 22 22 22 24
0x yz
E pc pc pc mc=+++
(32)
Now let us substitute values from (29) to (32) and after some modifications we
have
6
It’s interesting that the quantity of indicated speed v has no upper limit which corresponds to the
original pre-relativistic understanding of speed.

R. Machotka
DOI:
10.4236/jmp.2018.96073 1246 Journal of Modern Physics
222
2 22 2
02
2
1
xyz
vvv
E mc c
v
c


++

= +

−


The velocities can be substituted using (21) and (26) which results in
( )
2 22 2 2
0i
E mc v c= +
Since the velocity in brackets can be written as
( )
22 22
,, ,,ix iy iz iw
vvvv+++
it is
from (28) obvious that the final formula reads
0 ,4iD
E m cv=
(33)
Similarly we can obtain formulas for components of inertia
0,x ix
p mv
=
,
0,y iy
p mv=
,
0,
z iz
p mv
=
, and there is no reason not to add the fourth component
0,w iw
p mv=
. For components of inertia it obviously applies
222
0
xyz i
p pppmv
= ++=
(34)
and analogically
2222
4 0 ,4D x y z w iD
p ppppmv= +++ =
(35)
It is interesting that a 4D velocity defined this way is, with the exception of
units, equal to the total energy
4D
E
pc
=
(36)
while the inertia in the fourth dimension is equal to the rest energy
0
0w
E
p mc
c
= =
(37)
The stated findings are interesting for several reasons:
1) Inertia and energy can be represented as quantities (vectors and scalars) in
Euclidean four-dimensional space (see Figure 13).
Figure 13. Relation between inertia and energy.

R. Machotka
DOI:
10.4236/jmp.2018.96073 1247 Journal of Modern Physics
2) Inertia and energy are of the same origin. If a 4D inertia vector is given, all
other quantities are determined as well. Inertia, by its nature, is a four-dimensional
vector. Its fourth spatial component, however, is in classic “three-dimensional”
physics interpreted as a separate scalar quantity—rest energy
E
0. Total energy
E
is the norm of a 4D inertia vector while kinetic energy is difference of total and
rest energy:
Ek = E – E
0 (see Figure 13).
3) Introduction of indicated velocities leads to a significant simplification of
formulas for energy and inertia. It can be seen that both quantities are directly
proportional to the indicated velocity. It worth comparing the famous but
slightly illogical formula for the total energy of a body
E = mc
2 with Formula
(33). The new formula states nothing else than that energy of a body is a product
of its rest mass multiplied by its indicated velocity. The quantity
c
in the formula
has to be understood as no more than a constant adjusting unit.
4) Employment of indicated velocities in formulas for energy and inertia
changes our view on body mass. The formulas do not assume the body’s mass
increase when the body is accelerating. So-called relativistic mass increase is
evidently caused by the use of an inconvenient time frame for description of the
dynamical properties of objects. If the coordinate time
t
is replaced with the ob-
ject’s proper time
τ
the reason for such mass increase vanishes.
8. Conclusions
Let us summarize the main features of EMST:
1) EMST is built on a type of a space that is quite familiar to us. Euclidean
space is the only space which, based on our own life experience, we surely know
exists.
2) Expansion of the number of spatial dimensions of Euclidean space from
three to four contradicts our life experience; however the model itself gives ex-
planations why all objects and the observable world as whole are three-dimensional.
3) The proposed model of space and time credibly explains cause of relativistic
transformations of space and time. Everything is explained as a result of interac-
tion of five partial, easily understandable geometric-kinematic effects.
4) The proposed model replaces two postulates of Einstein’s special theory of
relativity with three other. Because the former postulates can be derived from
the new, the mathematical expression of both theories is identical. This identity
is however not valid for the geometrical interpretation of both theories. One of
the postulates of EMST is euclidicity of 4D space which is in sharp contradiction
with geometrical interpretation of STR. This contradiction is principal and in-
evitable.
5) The nature of time is explained as a direct consequence of motion of bodies
in space. Because an object’s coordinate time is proportional to the length of its
trajectory it is obvious that, regardless of motion type, the time is always grow-
ing and never decreasing. The flow of time cannot be reversed.
6) The model assumes existence of a stationary coordinate system with some
outstanding features (isotropy of speed of light, fastest time flow, equality of

R. Machotka
DOI:
10.4236/jmp.2018.96073 1248 Journal of Modern Physics
length scales of axes) but simultaneously states that such a system cannot be dis-
tinguished from other inertial systems by any type of observation. As a result, all
coordinate systems have (seemingly) all the above stated outstanding features.
7) The model explains why the speed of light is identical in all systems and
why it is ultimate speed which cannot be overcome. It also offers a different de-
finition of velocity which seems to be very convenient for expressing inertia and
energy of a moving object. The model illustrates common physical nature of in-
ertia and energy.
8) The model also implies that the universe emerged from a single point. The
requirement of a common initial point for trajectories of all objects is necessary
for definition of simultaneity.
Important Remark at the Closure
EMST gives an alternate description of the physical space we are living in. It de-
scribes space and time quite differently compared to the commonly accepted
model of STR. So the question arises which description is correct and which is
wrong. Although the mathematical expression of both models is equivalent we
cannot hope that they are merely two different descriptions of the same reality.
They are not!
Conflict of Interests
The author declares that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publica-
tion of this paper.
References
[1] Einstein, A. (1905)
Ann Phys-Berlin
, 17, 891-921. [English translation: (1920) On
Electrodynamic of Moving Bodies. In:
The Principle of Relativity
, Calcutta Univer-
sity Press, 1-34]
[2] Minkowski, H. (1907) Die Grundgleichungen für die elektromagnetischen
Vorgänge in bewegten Körpern.
Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissen-
schaften zu Göttingen, Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse
, 53-111. [English trans-
lation: (1920) The Fundamental Equations for Electromagnetic Processes in Moving
Bodies. In:
The Principle of Relativity
, Calcutta University Press, 1-69]
[3] Minkowski, H. (1909)
Phys Z
, 10, 104-111. [English translation: (1920) Space and
Time. In:
The Principle of Relativity
, Calcutta University Press, 70-88]
[4] Hawking, S. and Penrose, R. (1996)
Scientific American
, 275, 60-65.
https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0796-60
[5] Hawking, S. (2014)
The European Physical Journal H
, 39, 413-503.
https://doi.org/10.1140/epjh/e2014-50013-6
[6] Sonego, S. (1995)
Physics Letters A
, 208, l-7.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9601(95)00743-M
[7] Tavokol, R. (2009)
International Journal of Modern Physics A
, 24, 1678-1685.
https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X09045224
[8] Hohmann, M. (2013)
Physical Review D
, 87, 124034.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.87.124034

R. Machotka
DOI:
10.4236/jmp.2018.96073 1249 Journal of Modern Physics
[9] Brill, D. and Jacobson, T. (2006)
General Relativity and Gravitation
, 38, 643-651.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10714-006-0254-9
[10] Jonsson, R. (2001)
General Relativity and Gravitation
, 33, 1207-1235.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012037418513
[11] Lorentz, H.A. (1904)
Proceedings of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and
Sciences
, 6, 809-831.