Good question!

But, let me ask you, if you choose to contemplate your dog while you walk on the street, does the dog begin fatter? Nothing happens to the dog, he doesn't gather quanta.

The relativistic formula for energy is

E = sqrt(m02c4 + p2c2)

which means that if an object moves (as a whole) with respect to you, it has some supplement of mechanic energy, E - m0c2, but nothing happens to the object. You can consider, equivalently, that it's you who moves with respect to the object.

In fact, the original statement is misleading at best. Einstein, and following him, older textbooks, do use this concept. But it is generally held to be far more a source of confusion than anything else. Rest mass is now usually considered to be the mass of a particle.

The essence of the statement you make comes from the relativistic reformulation of Newton's law, F = m a. This is invariant under Galilean transformations, but not under Lorentz transformations. From a Lorentz invariant viewpoint, the usual definition of velocity is highly inconvenient. Indeed, it corresponds to an increase of x1 divided by an increase of x0, that is, it is a quotient of components of vectors, and so transforms in a horrible way.

It is much better to define velocity as a 4-vector. One then defines it as the change in position (as measured in a given reference frame) divided by the time increment as measured in the particle's own rest frame. The latter is a scalar. This 4-velocity is a vector of ``length'' c, but the length of the corresponding spatial part is not limited by c, as is shown by muons: in a proper time of 2.2 microseconsd (their half life) they easily cross the Earth's atmosphere, which is about 10 km. The corresponding acceleration is defined as the infinitesimal increment of 4-velocity divided, again, by the increment in proper time. Both 4-acceleration and 4-velocity then transform as 4-vectors. Newton's second law is then written as

f = m0 a

where f is a 4-dimensional generalisation of force, m0 is the *rest mass* and a is the 4-acceleration. If we take the rest mass as a scalar, then both sides of this equation transform in the same way, so it is Lorentz covariant. 

As you see, there is no increase in mass, no change in inertia, except when we translate this equation back into the rest frame coordinates. Then it turns out that, for example, if we apply a constant force to a particle (say an electric field to an electron), its velocity as measured in the original clumsy way, saturates to the speed of light. This is then occasionally interpreted to mean that the particle resists the force always more, with the consequence that one speaks of relativistic mass. But this is conceptually rather treacherous, and speaking in terms of rest mass is far better.

Finally, an important issue: rest mass itself is unproblematic for elementary particles: it is a number you look up in a table. But for composite systems, it is rather tricky. In particular, as evidenced by nuclei, it is generally not true that a system ``built up'' of simpler systems, has a rest mass equal to the sum of these subsystems. This all goes back to the relationship E = mc^2, which connects rest mass and energy. But that is another question.

Andrew, maybe you want to consider my reformulation of the equivalence principle as "fluid equivalence principle" (see section #1 of the below attached work). In the same section it is shown how any object with a translational velocity through space (seen as fluid quantum space) undergoes mass increase as an effect of gravity, which can act not only downwards but also in the opposite direction to motion.

Article A superfluid Theory of Everything? [outdated version]

"What is the mechanism an electron can appear to gain relativistic mass in conventional SR?"

According to SR, nobody knows and they all say different things. What Sofia says is however closest to the truth to me. The existence of longitudinal and transversal mass that Einstein calculated in "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper" shows that mass, which is considered a scalar, cannot increase.

A similar mechanism has been described by Maxwell. The increase of velocity creates a cone of the electric field, resulting in an increasing transversal electric field and a decreasing longitudinal field.

The concept of SR, which writes down relativistic mass as "mass", is misleading. It should be written down as anisotropic gravitational fields.

@sofia 

But your relativistic equation is equivalent to E = gamma.m0c^2. And c is invariant which means the apparent mass has risen,  n'est pas.

@Andrew,

I have no idea why was introduced the concept of relativistic mass

m = m0γ.

But let me describe another scenario: assume that someone on a space shuttle, in absence of gravity, tries to catch a bottle of glass. But he misses the bottle, which flies toward a wall. For the bottle, the wall moves toward it, and nothing happens to the bottle just because something moves with respect to it. But when hitting the wall, the bottle is broken.

That doesn't happen because the bottle, or the wall, gathered quanta, but because either of them had mechanical energy with respect to the other.

@sofia.

Here's the thing,

when I first met (SR) relativity at  18 years, I rejected it as nonsense  (with all night discussions at Uni)

When at thirty I met a true mathematician  I understood it was derived from Pythagoras and he could prove the maths -then I could derive it from first principles. Case solved. 

Not so.  Revisting it at 40 years I was convinced there had to be an absolute statioanry frame of reference

Not so, then I re-examined the ether theory, which Einstein had rejected

Then, a little time later I read that Einstein had said "general relativity without the ether is unthinkable".

So i delved a bit further he also said there has to be an ether but we cannot ascribe a velocity to it.

Think, think, think. no immediate answer then in 1999 at the turn of the  the 21st century it came about that space-time has inherent energy ( the accelerating Universe).

So the answer albeit very slowly was obvious this is where the equation m = m0γ comes from.

So the "deneoument" is now obvious.

@Christian

I strongly recommend that you read the textbook "Special Relativity " ( 2001) by A.P French It is part of the introductory physics books by MIT. You are way off base and if you teach this nonsense then you should stop teaching.

And actually I,m not going to tell you what the real answer is because you clearly would have no way of understanding it

Why do I bother even answering this mulch

SR gives equations which correspond to experimental observations.  However, SR does not suggest any mechanical model which explains “why” these various effects take place.  The test of any particle model must be whether it explains why a specific energy particle acquires the correct amount of inertia and kinetic energy to agree with the equations of SR.  However, before talking about particles, we will start by making an analogy to confined light.  Suppose that a laser has a specific energy of light reflecting between its two mirrors. We will assume both mirrors to be 100% reflecting.  If each mirror is being struck by power P, then photon pressure will exert force F = 2P/c on each mirror. The force on each mirror will be equal magnitude and opposite vector direction if the two laser mirrors are stationary.  However, if the laser resonator is accelerated parallel to its optical axis, then the light hitting the “back” mirror will be blue shifted and the light hitting the front mirror will be red shifted. Even though the same number of photons are hitting each mirror per second, the difference in energy per photon produces a difference in power and a difference in the force exerted on each mirror.  There is a greater force on the back mirror which resists acceleration. This is the inertia of the confined light energy.  It is often said that a photon is a massless particle, however this is only true for a freely propagating photon.  When a photon is confined, it is forced to adopt the frame of reference of the confinement and the photon acquires the same amount of inertia as an equal energy particle. If the laser resonator is perceived to be in a moving frame of reference, then the counter propagating confined light is perceived to have both red and blue Doppler shifts. There is a net increase in the total energy of the light which exactly corresponds to the kinetic energy that this confined light should have.

Everything that has been said here is mathematically proven in an article titled “Light Is Heavy” available at: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.06478.pdf   Also this subject is addressed in chapter 1 of the online book titled “The Universe is Only Spacetime” available at the link below.  This book goes on to show how the model of a fundamental particle such as an electron can be built out of the quantum mechanical properties of spacetime.  A model of fundamental particles is presented which achieves inertial and kinetic energy by a mechanism analogous to the inertial and kinetic energy of confined light. The Higgs field might be required to give mass to W and Z bosons. However, confined light and spacetime based fermions obtain inertia and kinetic energy from the Doppler shift of waves without resorting on a vague interaction with the Higgs field.

Research The Universe Is Only Spacetime

@John

I like your stuff, you are on the right track

@ Christian mine was a genuine question, I was just so surprised that the answers bore no relation to standard SR.

Everybody seems to have forgotten the standard equations for SR

Logically tell me if: E = gamma. m0c^2, then which is increasing m or the speed of light c. Well certainly not c, so that only leaves m.

The rest of Leyvraz answer seems so contrived

John: "SR gives equations which correspond to experimental observations. However, SR does not suggest any mechanical model which explains “why” these various effects take place."

I don't agree. The mechanical model is very clear: when you measure retarded electromagnetic fields, say, F=q(E+vxB) in another, moving frame, you find a result. This can be related to F=ma.

And this gives the Lorentz transform used in SR.

However, some of the SR interpretation is wrong. A relativistic longitudinal mass and a relativistic transversal mass are not really masses. It should be the corresponding gravity fields that change. The same with time delay. It is not universal, but clock-dependent. Some clocks are found to get a different result from the SR delay.

It is the very reason why a million pages have been written about relativity, but why very few "successes" are obtained.

@sofia

And yes that extra energy is defined by the equation 

deltaE = gamma.m0c^2 - m0c^2. Now as c is invariant then the apparent mass  m, must increase.

You can do as many thought experiments as you like- the equations are what matter.

Interestingly the understanding of SR seems to have gone backwards over the last 15 years. I strongly  suggest you read the standard textbook "Special Relativity" by A.P. French 2001

The only thing that was right in modern physics SR has it seems recently been totally misunderstood,

@ Christian

I have read his (Gerck's)  article and it stems from a fundamental difficulty with the understanding of SR.

How can anything be just relative is the question in peoples mind, they cannot grasp the fundamental concept that there is no preferred state of motion. c is the only constant

And yes that extra energy is defined by the equation 

deltaE = gamma.m0c^2 - m0c^2. Now as c is invariant then the apparent mass  m, must increase.

You can do as many thought experiments as you like- the equations are what matter.

This is the starting point for understanding SR, I recommend that anybody read the standard textbook "Special Relativity" by A.P French (2001). SR is by the way just about the only thing that modern science has got right, QED, SM and GTR are seriously flawed. Which is why i am defending SR. 

Nevertheless, I am slightly shocked and horrified, that  no one seems to  understand basic SR anymore.

But that alone has been helpful

Andrew,   There is a mechanism that causes the mass of a particle to increase as v/c increases;  however, as F. Leyvras indicated,  it is better to define velocity as a 4-vector when accounting for such effect.

Since it is too cumbersome to describe the mass-increasing mechanism per our work,  in a post,  it is better to describe the mechanism in simpler terms.  We are all aware that an electron carries a cylindrical B-field as it translates.  For purposes of this post,  such B-field can be considered the electron,  since the electron is similarly constructed.  As v/c increases,  the length of the cylindrical B-field of the electron contracts inward towards its center at the mid-length of the cylindrical B-field.  The contraction is the same as the Lorentz length contractions of objects that occur at high v/c ratios in SR.

In the contracted position,  the spatial rate of change of the B-field is increased since the components of the B-field are now closer together.  This,  in turn,  creates a radial inward-pulling force on the cylindrical B-field per Maxwell’s work;  thus causing its diameter to decrease.  As a result,  the quanta that make-up the cylindrical B-field,  have shorter oscillation strokes.  Due to this,  the frequencies of the oscillations increase and per Planck’s equation,  the energies of such quanta increase,  correspondingly. 

So now,  the electron has greater energy  (due to greater v/c)  since its quanta constituents all have greater energies.  Due to such increases in energies,  the electron’s mass and gravitational potential increase, correspondingly.  This basic mechanism occurs similarly in other fermions.

Two protons, P1 and P2, fly past each other at high speed, say gamma=10. Each says: I am the one with a reasonable mass of 1 GeV. The other guy has this awful mass of 10 GeV.

As Dingle himself might have said: which of the two is right?

Of course, if P1 sets up a lab (forgiving the surrealism) and tries to accelerate P2, he will find it harder than to accelerate himself. But, of course, the same will happen to P2 if he sets up a lab and tries to accelerate P1.

What ``mechanism'' could account for this dreadful symmetry?

Arguing for the fact that these quantities are, in fact, not physical and disappear upon looking at the whole issue in a Lorentz covariant way, is not, in my view, contrived.

F. Leyvraz,  Please consider.  Each proton sees the other proton as having the same relative velocity with respect to itself.  Thus, each proton will also see the other proton as being much more massive than itself;  for example,  the other proton will appear flatter than the observing proton due to Lorentz length contraction at such a high relative v/c ratio.  The flattening of the other proton is the mechanism,  by which,  such proton’s mass increases relative to the observing proton.  This mechanism was alluded to in our previous post.

@ Dan: We fully agree: the length contraction is *apparent*. Hence, if there should be any mechanism leading from length contraction to mass increase, we are led to realise that the mass increase is itself, also, merely apparent. As was in any way clear from the fact that either proton sees the other as more massive, with the relativity principle guaranteeing that the two protons' reference frames are quite equivalent.

It is easy to go back to the deterministic  non relativistic point of view, but once you accept that there is no special frame or reference, no special speed and everything at the quantum levels is in relative motion. then you begin to realize that SR works, with the only constant here being c.

To have to rely on a rather flawed and incomplete theory which is GTR to resolve ones misunderstanding of SR - is a considerable step backwards.

F. Leyvraz,,   You mentioned:  “Hence, if there should be any mechanism leading from length contraction to mass increase, we are led to realise that the mass increase is itself, also, merely apparent.”

The mass increase of the first proton relative to the second proton is not visually apparent,  but the increase in the gravitational potential of the first proton relative to the second proton can be felt by the second proton.  The gravitational potential is greater for the first proton because its mass has increased due to a high v/c ratio relative to the second proton.

But,  more importantly,  the mechanism that gives rise to an increase in mass of a particle occurs simultaneously with and is due to the mechanism that gives rise to length contraction of the particle,  and the latter mechanism is a high v/c ratio in SR due to the particle’s velocity.  The mechanism that gives rise to an increase in mass of a particle was described in an earlier post.  It is reproduced below in italics.

In the contracted [state of a proton],  the spatial rate of change of [its cylindrical] B-field is increased since the components of the B-field are now closer together.  This,  in turn,  creates a radial inward-pulling force on the cylindrical B-field per Maxwell’s work;  thus causing its diameter to decrease.  As a result,  the quanta that make-up the cylindrical B-field,  have shorter oscillation strokes.  Due to this,  the frequencies of the oscillations increase and per Planck’s equation,  the energies of such quanta increase,  correspondingly.

So now,  the [proton] has greater energy  [due to its length contraction, which is due its high v/c ratio]  since its quanta constituents all have greater energies.  Due to such increases in energies,  the [proton’s] mass and gravitational potential increase, correspondingly.

Andrew,

your question “What is the mechanism an electron can appear to gain relativistic mass in conventional SR?”

first of all contains the notion “mass” that has a number of different understandings in the mainstream physics; including the rather strange relating to physics but quite natural at using in some mathematical physical models definition that “the mass is the Lorentz invariant m2=E2-p2 (с=1)".

But in physics Newtonian definition of the mass as a measure of the inertia, i.e. a measure of the capability of a material object to resist a changing of the state of the inertial motion, remains be utmost “physical”. Besides, there is the “gravitational mass” also, that relates to a quite different relation to the "motion" phenomenon, i.e., to “the gravity”, what has no relation to the formulae above.

It seems as rather probable that the suggestions in the thread’s question fairly unlikely contain some reasonable answers:

“...The number of quanta per unit time in a mass rises as time dilation occurs…”

- why the number rises and why the “quanta” (and quanta of what?) results in the mass increase of an material object [further “particles”] at its speed’s increase; and, what is principal – the speed increases relating to what?

[the answer to the last point is – [the speed] “relating to the absolute space [in the absolute spacetime”], when a particle that is at absolute spatial rest, it has minimal inertia/ the inertial mass.

Thus, for example, if some particle moves in the space inertialy, but thinks, as that, say, SR claims, that just the mass of the “moving” particle that is at rest in the reality, increases – that isn’t, of course, true.]

“…Mass appears to increase as the space- time lattice substance appears to get denser”

- here seems as there cannot be some reasonable comments; besides that it seems as rather questionable that a possible

[in the reality rather probably a 4D dense lattice indeed fills the 4D spacetime. But the spacetime cannot have any structure by definition as some virtual “[5]4D empty container”]

lattice (“4D Aether”), “get denser” because of some particle [though it seems the particles are indeed some disturbances in Aether] moves in it.

“…Do the number of quanta in the relativistic electron actually increase, as it acquires more quanta from the space-time lattice…”

- again – what are “quanta”, how their number “increase”, why and how they are acquired by particles?

In the reality seems as rather probable that particles are some 4D gyroscopes, and the inertia is the gyroscope’s resistance to attempts to change its vector rotation rate. Just therefore the inertia depends on the direction of an impact on a particle and the direction of the particle’s motion; including because of the “rest mass” particles at spatial rest move in the time only, and the t-axis is orthogonal to any spatial direction, the “relativistic mass” that occurs at spatial impact is equal to the “transverse” mass. When if a spatial impact on a moving in the space particle is directed along the motion direction, then the scalar value of the rotation rate increases also; and so, e.g., the “longitudinal ” mass is larger then the transverse one.

Etc., more – see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics

The model that contains a version of the answer about the equivalence of the gravitational and inertial masses – see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265509276_The_informational_model_-_gravity

Cheers

Article The Informational Conception and Basic Physics

Article The informational model – gravity

@Correnti @Leyvraz,

yes. Length contraction is "apparent" in that it only applies to "measurements". No physical structure really contracts. This is the official explanation, and it's right.  This contraction in the measurement simply depends on time dilation (this is also an official explanation).

Now, since it is also accepted that time doesn't slow down but - to be precise - "clocks" do that, and since we know that gravity can slow clocks ( > general relativity) simply because it produces an acceleration (g) on the clock's components which contrasts with the internal time mechanism, all this is only a step far from hypothesizing and demonstrating that also speed produces greater gravity (see "fluid equivalence principle", at the beginning of the linked paper) and therefore a greater inertia (here is the question about mass increase).  

About this fluid principle I would answer @Andrew  who states "at quantum level everything is in relative motion": why do you say "at quantum level"? Einstein's relativity is not a quantum theory. It is however interesting to reflect on the effects of motion from a quantum point of view (as in the paper but this is beyonds Einstein, it's quantum physics). If you do that, the symmetry of relative motion is broken. The follow up of Einstein's relativity, i.e. a quantum theory of relativity which doesn't contradict Einstein, which maintains his equation, by only introducing a quantum aspect (as I try to do) will break the reciprocity (relative motion) and this would be good to eliminate paradoxes like that of twins (for instance), which now is eliminated in a more complicate (and debatable) way.

Article A superfluid Theory of Everything? [outdated version]

As a theory fluidic space - holds water.

Not sure where this is going, isn't  SR correct- surely the question is why is it correct?

Answers without referring to 4D manifolds,  (ie as near as to zero gravity as you can get where GTR effects are near  infinitesimal).

Maybe fluidic space-time has some bearing.

If both protons are going at 10 gamma relative to each other , both are right as they are both going at 10 gamma relative to fluidic space-time. (and remember we now know energy is  inherent in space time).

I would not dismiss SR in its original form so readily, the question is why is the answer SR?

So answers to the original question, with the greatest of respect, would be much appreciated.

Marco,  Proper length and mass of an object,  like the 1st proton,  do not change with an increase in its velocity.  However,  the previous discussion was in regards to changes in such parameters relative to the 2nd proton.  In this regard,  the 2nd proton sees and feels changes in the length and mass of the 1st proton respectively.  All this is per SR.

Not got it yet, it is relative velocity to the (energetic ) space time lattice.

SR is based on relationships between different objects (or relative reference frames) due to relative velocities.  In the proper reference frame,  no changes occur in the object due to its velocity.  Spacetime lattice is not a necessary component for SR.

@Andrew,

I don't say SR is wrong, on the contrary my work confirms it, the only difference is that Einstein considers (relative) motion occurring through a simple vacuum (i.e. "only mathematical empty space"), while I hypothesize a fluid quantum space (close to quantum vacuum we already manage) and in this case relative motion is still relative for the two involved objects but not for the "third" observer, that is quantum space itself. Again, it's not a lack of respect, because we know that the experts in relativity already resort to a third observer to solve many relativistic cases.  

Let's put that in practice with the twin paradox:

you have a twin on Earth and the other traveling through fluid quantum space.

The interaction with space' quanta is different, since only that who's traveling is interacting with them, undergoing their viscosity for instance. The formula I derived to solve the twin paradox put in the Lorentz factor not a simple "v" (velocity) but a relative velocity (i.e. the difference between the velocity of the flow of space's quanta which the twin on Earth is subject to (that of Earth's gravitational field, which we know also produces relativistic effects according to general relativity) and that which the traveling twin is subject to). And the paradox is easily and immediately solved "confirming" what Einstein wants (that is only the traveling brother will be younger at the final comparison, not both).

So, there's no different conclusion respect to Einstein's equations and SR is okay for me too. The difference is that it seems we're able to transform relativity in a quantum theory by simply transform the equivalence principle in a fluid equivalence principle, i.e. by considering motion not through a simple vacuum but through a fluid quantum space  (chapter 1.1 of the attached paper).

But if you want to know the why of mass increase according to current SR, the answer is simple: "we don't know". It simply depends from the mathematics of Lorentz factor which has been specifically structured to make it impossible to overcome light's speed (because we had experimentally noticed it was unreachable). In this sense, Einstein's relativity is quite a phenomenological theory.

@Dan

I well know that proper mass and length don't change in the moving frame of reference.  I was indeed stating that for the observer (e.g. a scientist at a synchrotron, you say for the first particle compared to the second, it's the observer, okay) the accelerated electron has an infinite mass-energy by approaching the speed of light because of (in my opinion) its interaction with quantum space's apparent vicosity, due to the fact that quantum space is superfluid but as all superfluids it owns a minimum viscosity which becomes relevant when shear stress is driven to relativistic velocities.

Article A superfluid Theory of Everything? [outdated version]

I don't mean to  say you were wrong, nor SR. But you have to remember that Einstein said the "ether was superfluous" in 1905, which is wrong.

@Andrew,

yes, all depends from details. Physics is details. If you change even a single precondition the result may be very different. 

Einstein said the ether was superfluous, and the Michelson-Morley experiment has shown light doesn't travel through any ether.

But I show how the presence of an ether (or better of a "superfluid quantum space") can coincidentally solve all what we don't understand and explain yet about quantum relativity and quantum gravity. If the "ether wind" considered in the MM experiment coincides with the gravitational field (so downward not sideward, as my theory of quantum gravity hypothesizes with space quanta absorption in fermions), superfluid quantum space doesn't contradict then the experiment !  As you see, a different precondition... a different result.

It is moreover very interesting to see what happens to a photon, if we assume it travel through a superfluid quantum space, instead of a simple vacuum.

Even if the space is superfluid, it should loose energy over time. As the Hubble's law indicates. Well, it shows that the redshift (less energy) depends on the acceleration of distant galaxies... but we can't confim that. We are only sure of the redshift not of the cause. If photons would loose energy the redshift (and Hubble's law) would be the same.

So, sometimes, it's also true the contrary, i.e. that the same result may involve different preconditions. We can never be too sure (or science would die). If anyone wants to be "not too sure" and to reflect more about a photon through a fluid space, there's much more in section #1.2 of the previously attached paper.

Andrew,

“…- surely the question is why is it  [the SR] correct?…”

- the SR isn’t correct as some global theory that explains all processes in Matter; and it is correct only when it doesn’t go out the [Voigt-Larmor-FitzGerald-Poincare…-] Lorentz theory – just because of in the SR the rejection of the absolute spacetime and total equivalence of all reference frames are postulated.

 When the […] Lorentz theory was created as a theory that acts in an absolute spacetime, which is  filled by  a medium – “Aether”, where EM waves are some regular disturbances of Aether that move in the medium with the speed of light.

 In the informational model (see the link in the SS post on 3 page) not only EM waves/photons, but any other particles are some regular disturbances of Aether and move in Aether with the speed of light

“…Answers without referring to 4D manifolds…”

- that isn’t correct. Matter’s spacetime is just 4D Euclidian

[SR isn’t correct also in that it claims 4D Minkowski space as real Matter’s spacetime; this space is  nothing more then some other mathematical form of the Lorentz transformations - as that Poincare proposed]

spacetime. Or, more correctly, Matter’s spacetime is 5D Euclidian manifold, but that practically isn’t essential for the physics till now. As well as Aether is [5]4D dimensional. Just because of Lorentz and other physicists thought that Aether is 3D, they could not explain – what are the “FitzGerald-Lorent contraction” (of lengths of material objects, not, of course, of space distances, as that the SR claims) and what is the Voigt-Lorentz temporal decrement VL/c2, which reveals as the  “relativity of the simultaneity”.

Therefore in the [….] Lorentz theory these effects were used as the basic experimental facts only.

But when you consider the particles/bodies motion in the 4D Aether, these effects become be quite natural (more, again – see the link above)

“…Maybe fluidic space-time has some bearing….”

Anybody who understands – what are “space”, “time” and “spacetime” understands also that Matter’s spacetime (and any spacetime of any other system) principally cannot have any structure and/ or properties besides that (1) – they are principally absolute, and (2)  the spacetime is [here] nothing more then a [5]4D “empty container”, without any “fluidic” , "curvature", etc.

“…If both protons are going at 10 gamma relative to each other , both are right as they are both going at 10 gamma relative to fluidic space-time…”

- that isn’t totally correct: (1) – a “motion with a gamma” here – is a motion in the space [not in the time] only (and the motion in 5-th [“true time”] dimension, but that’s inessential here); and (2). - at that each of  protons can move practically with any absolute speed (lesser then C) relating to 3D space provided that their relative speed is consistent with 10 gamma.

“…(and remember we now know energy is  inherent in space time)…”

- That isn’t correct – nothing besides the property “empty container” can be inherent to the spacetime.

“So answers to the original question, with the greatest of respect, would be much appreciated….”

- an answer on the question “What is the mechanism an electron can appear to gain relativistic mass in conventional SR?” is already in the SS post on 3-page: - the inertia/ mass of any particle/body, not only of an electron, increases as the result of a transmission to the particle/body additional momentum that increases its absolute spatial speed; very probably – as that follow from experiments – the inertia depends on the angle between directions of moving body and the momentum because of particles/ bodies are 4D gyriscopes.

This point without any explanation (“phenomenologicaly”), but correctly, is presented in the SR (see, e.g., Par. 10 in Einstein's 1905 paper), since it follows from the Lorentz transformation.

Cheers

``If both protons are going at 10 gamma relative to each other , both are right as they are both going at 10 gamma relative to fluidic space-time''

How can that be? If proton P1 is at rest wrt ``fluidic space time'' then P2 is moving fast wrt fluidic space time. That implies that P2 might be affected by that speed, but not P1. That in turn would mean that the mass of P1 is less than that of P2, independently of reference frame. But that is not what is seen, or what SR states: what is the case is that the mass of P2 is 10 GeV in P1's reference frame, and viceversa, P1's mass iis 10 GeV in P2's frame, whereas, of course, each proton has only a mass of 1 GeV in its own reference frame.

SR is not easy to make compatible with any preferred reference frame, such as would normally be implied by the presence of a fluid.

Interactions of material objects indeed in very many cases are symmetrical, and at considering of the interactions one can choose a convenient reference frame; including – any of two frames, where object P1 or object P2 are “at rest”. Such situation follows from that all objects move  in uniform and isotropic  [5]4D Aether with identical by absolute value speeds [=C], with  “equal footing”, and without energy dissipation; thus physical lows are essentially symmetrical.

That follow to invent  mathematical models that implicitly use some laws that in depth determinate material objects existence and interactions (that [laws ] realize themselves as “forces”, “charges”, etc) and  Aether’s properties above.

But any normal human never think that any physical model really, totally, and completely is adequate to every considered physical situation. If a driver on a crossroad doesn’t drive correctly and the car had moved in, say, a shop, any policeman will not arrest the shop’s owner for that his shop exceeded permissible speed – though for physics of corresponding physical interaction is inessential – what was moving, the car or the shop.

But in the SR situation is principally different – the total symmetry of  all reference frames is postulated in this theory; so the policeman above, if he would be a SR true believer, indeed must seriously solve the puzzle  - the driver or the owner was driving?

As that is in “….what SR states: what is the case is that the mass of P2 is 10 GeV in P1's reference frame, and vice versa, P1's mass is 10 GeV in P2's frame…”

- thus, for example, SR states that indeed, when protons  move with gamma near 104 trough LHC tube, at that really, say, physicists on LHC, being as 0.1mm pancakes having masses near 100 tons, fly around the LHC’s center. At that – because of all   reference frames [in this case – of protons in the tube] are real, then, because of in the tube always simultaneously move billions of protons, so around LHC really simultaneously  fly billons of the physicists. Moreover – since the coordinates in any SR reference frame aren’t local -  they are infinite, thus billons of heavily contracted our Universes fly around LHC also.

Etc. – seems not less then tenth time (!) here:   a list of absurd consequences, which directly follow from the “fundamental” rejection in the SR of the absolute spacetime and postulating of the total equivalence of all reference frames, is infinite.

When this fact is so evident, that a next case, when a next SR true believer claims that this theory is totally adequate to the reality, seems already as something transcendental …

Cheers