In short, the half in kinetic energy comes from a Taylor expansion of the relativistic energy formula since the formula 1/2mv2 is only an approximation of special relativity. The half in kinetic energy can also be explained as an integration factor from the work-energy theorem.

The simplest answer comes probably from Newton's law and the derivation of the work energy theorem. In 1-D

F=ma

Fv=mav

Fdx=mvdv

Integrating both sides you get the work on the LHS. On the RHS, the integral of v is v^2/2. Hence, the one half factor.

"Why there is a factor 1/2 in classic kinetic energy relation?"

The reason is that in Newton's time only the momentum energy of moving masses at very low velocities (compared to relativistic velocities) could be experimentally measured. Electromagnetic energy was unknown and it was only at the beginning of the 20th century that Kaufmann caused subatomic masses (electrons) to move at the relativistic velocities that revealed that not only the momentum energy was induced according to a non-rectilinear relation with respect to velocity, but that a magnetic amount of energy (undetectable at low macroscopic velocities) equal to the momentum energy was also induced at the same time as the momentum energy.

This added amount of energy is measurable transversely as increased mass when electrons are forced to be deflected from rectilinear trajectories, an amount of increased mass that varies with velocity according to the same law as momentum energy.

It is from these observations that Lorentz established his force equation.

In reality, the corrected kinetic energy equation is ∆K=1/2 γm0v2, and the total energy induced is ∆E=∆K+∆mc2, With ∆K=∆mc2.

If interested, this paper explains the function of the magnetic field in the increase of mass with velocity:

Michaud A. (2013). From Classical to Relativistic Mechanics via Maxwell. International Journal of Engineering Research and Development e-ISSN: 2278-067X, p-ISSN: 2278-800X, Volume 6, Issue 4 (March 2013), PP. 01-10

https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/3197

André Michaud

-> ∆E=∆K+∆mc2, With ∆K=∆mc2. -> ∆E=∆mc2 +∆mc2 = 2∆mc2.

This is consequence You did want?

and then with ∆K=1/2 γm0v2,-> ∆E=1/2 γm0v2 +1/2 γm0v2 = 2*1/2 γm0v2= m0v2

I looked at Your article. shortly- It has some didactic motive, to understand another way. This can lead to another view.

This ∆E=∆K+∆mc2 means You use Lorentz factor on rest mass too. In my model theory I do it also.

sorry,

=γm0v2

Viktor Schatz

Dear Viktor,

You wrote: "-> ∆E=∆K+∆mc2, With ∆K=∆mc2. -> ∆E=∆mc2 +∆mc2 = 2∆mc2.

This is consequence You did want?"

For obtaining the correct amount of energy involved, yes.

You wrote: "and then with ∆K=1/2 γm0v2,-> ∆E=1/2 γm0v2 +1/2 γm0v2 = 2*1/2 γm0v2= γm0v2"

Same answer: for obtaining the correct amount of energy involved, yes.

You wrote: "I looked at Your article. shortly- It has some didactic motive, to understand another way. This can lead to another view.

This ∆E=∆K+∆mc2 means You use Lorentz factor on rest mass too. In my model theory I do it also. "

Yes.

If we separate the longitudinal inertia from the transverse inertia in correlation with Lorentz "masses" m1 and m2 in his 1904 paper, we get the two following more detailed equations:

For the longitudinal inertia: γm0v2 + m0c2. (corresponding to the first term of the Lorentz Force equation: eE +m0c2)

For the transverse inertia (As measured by Kaufmann, corresponding to the Lorentz force second term): γm0c2

Best Regards, André

to all together, André Michaud Fernando Sampaio dos Aidos Hadi Jabbar Alagealy

my question was not for academic explain, but for a physical model how really the interaction is wirking. And I presented my new model.

But it is good if here are all know explains coming toghether

Viktor Schatz

Dear Viktor,

You wrote:"my question was not for academic explain, but for a physical model how really the interaction is wirking. And I presented my new model.

But it is good if here are all know explains coming together"

In your previous message, you rightfully noticed that my article was written at the level of "didactic motivation", and indeed I did this on purpose, being fully aware that the academic community would not be receptive to the reintroduction of Maxwell's initial interpretation of the relation between the E and B fields.

Particularly in light of the fact that the transverse mass increase revealed by transverse interaction of electrons trajectories in all applications guiding electrons on curved trajectories (such as CRT screens, for example), which is controlled via the Lorentz force equation second term, is absent from the Special Relativity equations (By choice of the community in 1907 since its effect was undetectable for macroscopic masses at low macroscopic velocities).

Consequently, I wrote the complete series of my articles to be easily understandable (at the mathematical level) for entry level students in physics, who have not yet learned higher level math (such as Taylor series, etc) and have not yet made up their minds as to what they will consider important among the models offered to them.

With regard to your proposition that it would be good if all of what we explain could maybe come together, I am in favor, but my analysis of the subatomic level is now complete, having in mind that if the upcoming generation took interest, they would be those who may undertake such an integration.

But if you are interested in what may be of use to you in my contribution, the final synthesis of the electromagnetic mechanics of elementary particles that I analyzed, as a complement to Lorentz's first electromagnetic mechanics equation, is available here (all formal sources are provided):

Michaud, A. (2020) Electromagnetism according to Maxwell's Initial Interpretation. Journal of Modern Physics, 11, 16-80. https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2020.111003.

https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Mathematical%20Physics/Download/8068

Best Regards, André

André Michaud

hello, Andre,

as You mention transversal and longitudinal mass in Lorentz transformations, in literature (Bergmann) it is ml = γ3m0 in 3th and mt = γm0

But in use is only the transversal relation. I never did found any explain why in calculation of impact momenta and energy in colliders we use transversal and not longitudinal relation. It seems it was just droped without explain.

You know why?

Viktor Schatz

Dear Viktor,

You wrote: " as You mention transversal and longitudinal mass in Lorentz transformations, in literature (Bergmann) it is ml = γ3m0 in 3th and mt = γm0

But in use is only the transversal relation. I never did found any explain why in calculation of impact momenta and energy in colliders we use transversal and not longitudinal relation. It seems it was just droped without explain.

You know why?"

Yes I think I do.

It is because in a note by Poincaré dated june 5 of 1905, widely distributed as was the habit of the French Académie des sciences (Poincaré, H. (1905) La dynamique de l'électron. Comptes rendus d l'Académie des Sciencs, t. 140, p. 1504-1508), Poincaré confirmed the validity of the previously published Lorentz transformations (in his 1904 paper) and gave his conclusion that, from the apparent failure of the Michelson and Morley experiments to demonstrate the existence of an absolute reference in the universe relative to which the motion of all massive bodies could be calculated, the existence of such an absolute reference would be forever impossible to ascertain. Einstein agreed and then shortly afterwards submitted his major paper on relative motion, that became known as the Special Relativity Theory.

Since relative motion calculation involves longitudinal velocities, transverse relations are mostly meaningless in SR.

In colliders, not taking into account transverse relativistic mass would not provide the right trajectories of deflected beams, and the Lorentz force equation second term (Established by Heaviside previously) is the only existing method known to calculate the varying transverse mass.

Note that in his 1904 paper, Lorentz not only proposed his "transformations", he also gave his conclusions about the Kaufmann data in reference to his m1 and m2 equations (30):

" Folglich verhält sich das Elektron bei Vorgängen, bei welchen eine Beschleunigung in der Bewegungsrichtung auftritt, als ob es die Masse m1 hätte, bei Beschleunigung in einer zur Bewegung senkrechten Richtung, als ob es die Masse m2 besäße. Diese Größen m1 und m2 werden deshalb passend die „longitudinale“ und „transversale“ elektromagnetische Masse genannt. Ich nehme an, daß außerdem keine „wirkliche“ oder „materielle“ Masse besteht."

From these conclusions, the Lorentz force equation was developed and has been in use ever since by engineers, even if the fundamental physics community has neglected it in favor of SR and has even mostly forgotten that accelerating masses also increase (transversely measurable) on top of their momentum energy also increasing.

Strangely, the Lorentz force equation uses the electron momentum energy and its transverse magnetic energy as absolute references to calculate the electron motion. Isn't it ironic?

They all were using the absolute references but did not recognize them.

Best Regards, André

André Michaud

Andre- its starting to became interesting.

In colliders as in CERN we have protons colliding in 2 beams moving antiparallel. Then a lot of short living particles are born and registrated. And they were calculated, what momenta and rest mass they have.

If they use longitudinal relativistic mass they get one result and another if they use transversal mass. Which they use actually?

If I remeber SRT literature we have only transversal mass in use. In formulas of energy and momentum never we see a y3.

It is possible to decide by experiment, better by impacting with stable particles on a resting target, just to find out whether longitudinal oder trasversal mass is actually interacting. Maybe You know such article about. It must be old one too.

If so, then we have to conclude, that the longitudinal mass is just a mathematical solution without physical meaning. And it was logical to drop it.

Viktor Schatz

Dear Viktor,

You wrote: " In colliders as in CERN we have protons colliding in 2 beams moving antiparallel. Then a lot of short living particles are born and registrated. And they were calculated, what momenta and rest mass they have.

If they use longitudinal relativistic mass they get one result and another if they use transversal mass. Which they use actually?"

They use longitudinal relativistic mass plus longitudinal momentum, because they use the first term of the Lorentz force equation to calculate longitudinal inertia of such particles. If they use the SR equation, then they are using the equivalent of the transverse mass without the momentum energy element (measurable only longitudinally), or alternately, since the momentum energy is always equal to the transverse magnetic energy that accounts for the increased mass, they are using the invariant rest mass plus the relativistic momentum energy, both methods giving the same result, that lacks one half of the energy induced.

You wrote: " If I remeber SRT literature we have only transversal mass in use. In formulas of energy and momentum never we see a y3"

If you dig back more deeply, you will observe that they do not use the transverse mass, but the longitudinal momentum plus the rest mass systematically considered longitudinally invariant. You can readily see this just by looking at the energy-momentum equation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation

You will observe that they use m0, that is, the rest mass as remaining invariant, with only the momentum varying non-rectilinearly.

You wrote: " It is possible to decide by experiment, better by impacting with stable particles on a resting target, just to find out whether longitudinal oder trasversal mass is actually interacting. Maybe You know such article about. It must be old one too."

I can only recommend re-analyzing the Kaufmann data as Lorentz did, and also Planck and many other majors did just after Einstein published his relative-motion paper as they were trying to understand the difference between the Lorentz conclusions and Einstein's conclusion. I am positive that you will draw the same conclusion as them.

You wrote: " If so, then we have to conclude, that the longitudinal mass is just a mathematical solution without physical meaning. And it was logical to drop it."

That's what they concluded by considering that it did not apply to the macroscopic level, but the thing is that it does. It is not just a mathematical solution. The reality is that it does apply for macroscopic masses also, but the velocities at this level are so low that at such velocities the difference in measurement is so infinitesimal as to fall way deep into the error margin.

For example, a 1 kg mass falling 1 meter at sea level increases only by an amount of mass which is 13 orders of magnitude smaller than the energy contained in 1 gram of mass. Unmeasurable currently, particularly since nobody is aware of the issue, so nobody is trying to verify.

Best Regards, André

André Michaud

hi, Andre

You wrote: "They use longitudinal relativistic mass plus longitudinal momentum, because they use the first term of the Lorentz force equation to calculate longitudinal inertia of such particles."

Now it is clear what they use.

This means that the old founders did set longitudinal mass as function f(y) not f(y3) and we lost the reasoning why they did so.

Best regards, Viktor

Viktor Schatz

Dear Viktor,

You wrote: "This means that the old founders did set longitudinal mass as function f(y) not f(y3) and we lost the reasoning why they did so."

Lorentz at least was specifically thinking in terms of the mass of the electron, and was more inclined to think in terms of how its unit charge was accelerated.

It was clear at the time that at velocity zero, the charge of the electron was at unit value, and so was its rest mass.

Mentioned by Einstein at page 143, in comment to equation (2) in this 1910 paper (German original lost):

Einstein A. (1910) Le Principe de relativité et ses conséquences dans la physique moderne. Traduit de l'allemand par E. Guillaume. Archives des sciences physiques et naturelle 29 (1910): 5-28; 125-144.

https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol3-doc/211

In simple terms, this relation amounts to F=ma=eE.

eE being the first term of the Lorentz force equation.

It so happens that field E was defined by Gauss by simply removing one charge from the straightforward Coulomb equation

E = F/e=k e/r2, k being the Coulomb constant k=1/4πε0.

So when using the first term of the Lorentz force equation, you simply reconstitute the straightforward Coulomb equation:

eE=F=e2/4πε0r2

It so happens that the coulomb equation provides the exact double energy amount that the kinetic energy equation ½ γm0v2 provides, that is to say that it provides both the momentum energy of an accelerating electron plus its transverse mass increasing equal complement.

This is why using the first term of the Lorentz force equation provides the longitudinal relativistic mass plus longitudinal momentum γm0v2 + γm0c2, and why the second term of the Lorentz force equation provides only the directly measurable relativistic mass γm0c2.

The problem with SR is that it deals for all masses as if their transverse mass was invariant at m0c2, and why neither SR nor GR are able to correctly account for the so-called "anomalous" trajectories of Pioneer 10 and 11, for example. Their velocities are sufficient, even if also far from the relativistic range, for transverse γm0c2 to have a measurable impact on so long a trajectory, plus another factor out of context here that also contributes to their mass increase.

Best Regards, André

André Michaud

I see, You are open minded.

What You think, on one hand SRT says "relativity principle" means all inertial frames are "equal righted" and then for solution of twins paradox, it tells an ad hoc thumb rule "moved clocks are slower", and if You use additionally Minkowski theory, then they tell, "both observers see the other one with slowed time".

I mean this is clearly a contradiction. And Minkowski theiry is not telling that, there the time and length are elongated both. Better tpo say units are, themeasured values therefore are shirtened.

In my new Gravitational Level Theory all 3 relativistic attributes are dilated, elongated in units, and then using the enlat´rged units we get shorted measiredvalues except mass - because mass is a sum of prticles, and each was enlarged so sum alos enlarged.

The rest mass m'0 in a moved inertial frame IF' is enlarged compared to stationary one m0. but inseider inmoved IF' is emasuring the rest mass using enlarged units of mass and length and time and he gets so all invariant values.

Aktual I think it is used as given that they think m0 = m0'. But it is ym0 = m0'. Also I descovered PlancjConstant tobe 4th relativistic attrubute, but squared h' = y2h.

The problem anddiscoveredfailure in SRT is,that there the length was contracted in evry case, both for length units and measured distances. This eleminates at all the contraction. While in time dilation they are using differently dilating time units and then geting by longer dilated time units a shorter contracted mesured time distance. This produced that the second postulate was violated all the time!!! SRT violates 2nd postulateand c is not staying coinstant due to this failure. This was produced by Poincare and Lorentz and was taken over by Einstein, as he was nobody and those two were famous gays.

I have 6 new relativistic paradoxes discovered which cannot be solved in SRT and GRT, and solved by new Level Relativistic. Same did solve also that twins problem without ad hoc thumb rule.

There are som 15 articles about You can read. Problem is,that no one reads, they are reading title and swithing away as "itcannot be".

Yes I did it. I recomend to beginn with the "Moritz-Paradox" which is about lenght units failure causing violation of 2nd postulate.

Viktor Schatz

Dear Viktor,

Actually, although I see the interest in all attempts to more clearly come to terms with motion of masses or photons relative to motion of other masses or photons, such as you are also doing, on my part, I always was more intrigued by the absolute motion of elementary particles, which from my understanding, strictly depends on the relation between their electric charges, which is what drew me to try and address all issues from the Coulomb law perspective, that led to the E and B fields definition by Gauss, and that Maxwell (and Ludwig Lorenz) related to the speed of light in vacuum.

Maxwell's original equations were then simplified to the 4 equations that we are now familiar with by Heaviside, who also defined the relation between the B field and the velocity of electrons, that H.A. Lorentz then used to define the second term of his force equation, that Kaufmann then used to collect his data, the validity of which was then confirmed by Lorentz himself and then by many other majors.

Given that all my articles are grounded on the absolute motion of elementary particles that the Coulomb law allows to understand, it is difficult to really connect my conclusions with those that naturally come out of relative motion of masses and photons with respect to each other.

All I can say is that working from the Coulomb law acting as a fundamental adiabatic-kinetic-energy-inducing-yet-to-be-correctly-understood-active-agent, leads to fundamental conclusions that study of relative-motion-of-masses-or-photons-with-respect-to-each-other cannot lead to, and that I put in perspective in Section "The Coulomb Force" of this paper:

Michaud, A. (2020) Gravitation, Quantum Mechanics and the Least Action Electromagnetic Equilibrium States. In: Amenosis Lopez, editor. Prime Archives in Space Research. Hyderabad, India: Vide Leaf. 2020.

https://videleaf.com/gravitation-quantum-mechanics-and-the-least-action-electromagnetic-equilibrium-states/

Unfortunately, most of these conclusions cannot make sense from the relative-motion-of-masses-or-photons-with-respect-to-each-other perspective, which is why I wrote all my papers with the didactic motivation mindset that you so judiciously observed, aimed specifically at the upcoming generation to possibly become familiar with.

You wrote: " There are some 15 articles about You can read. Problem is,that no one reads, they are reading title and swithing away as "it cannot be"."

Yes. I am familiar with this problem, which is why I did not even bother to write my papers at a mathematical level that would please the current community, but I noticed that none of your papers seem to have been formally published.

Is it so? If not formally published, then I can tell you that if even one paper is formally published, this attracts more readership from the community at large.

Of course, in our day and age, publication in the English language is practically mandated. From this perspective and from a quick scan, I can tell you that your paper titled "Kinetic capacity effect of photons and rest mass particles, and a relativistic rest mass model", for example, could easily be accepted for formal publication.

Best Regards, André

André Michaud

Dear Andre,

no one of my articles were accepted. I trayed by best magazines. Some two british did as if they peer reviewed. other reacted imediatly.

Even after I did cut away my own hypothesies and just left the descoveries alone. My impression is,they only very shortly look for a higher mathematics, not interested in quality but just quantity oriented.

People are paying for open access. Even not to understand why each governement is not offering a service as here one and propagating own ressource and leaving all thouse magazines alone with the commercial businnes. Internet makes it possible. Even arxive is resticted.

Best Regards,Viktor

Viktor Schatz

Dear Viktor,

You wrote: "no one of my articles were accepted. I trayed by best magazines. Some two british did as if they peer reviewed. other reacted imediatly.

Even after I did cut away my own hypothesies and just left the descoveries alone. My impression is,they only very shortly look for a higher mathematics, not interested in quality but just quantity oriented."

A very familiar story. In fact, all standard physics journals have an axe to grind and anything not in complete agreement with the orthodox theories is automatically rejected. None of them has been open to new ideas since the 1950's.

You wrote: "People are paying for open access. Even not to understand why each governement is not offering a service as here one and propagating own ressource and leaving all thouse magazines alone with the commercial businnes. Internet makes it possible. Even arxive is resticted."

I found on my part that engineering journals are much more open to publish new ideas than the formal physics papers, as long as the math is seamless. My first string of papers were published in such journals in 2007 and 2013.

I then chose open access upon invitation from them (editors having read some of my previously published papers in engineering journals), for two reasons. One is that this allows you to keep your copyright to re-authorize publication, and second, that these journals do not ask money for people to read them. All open access papers are free to read worldwide.

The unexpected bonus that came out of it, is that editors specialized in scanning the global offer in search of articles that they find worthwhile, eventually progressively re-selected all of my papers published open access to be republished in updated form as book chapters in their specialized book collections meant to put these articles at more immediate disposal of the community, for students and researchers who do not have the time to scan the global offer.

The outcome is that now, my complete analysis of the subatomic level is formally published, both as a series of free access articles, and as a 2 books monograph available worldwide. All of them are regularly downloaded from many sources by people in all over the place institutions and individual researchers.

If you ever wish to try open access, I have relations with editors who would welcome your work.

Best Regards, André

This article is 20 years old. 1999 to 2000. I was at university in Bonn, introduced it to 2 professors. We had a meeting and one was speecking, Prof.Klein, "in 1930-s it would make a furore".. But both advised "not to publish".

I sand it to the magazine of Whily and got peer review by a Professor Hell of Köln, who wrote it down and refused.

Couple of men do decide to not let the world know a new descovery and an interpretation.

Dear Viktor,

You wrote: "Couple of men do decide to not let the world know a new descovery and an interpretation."

It is true only if you let incompetent reviewers, or reviewers who are afraid of the opinions of their peers, decide whether your material is worth publishing.

Typically, open access reviewers typically are not afraid of the opinion of their peers, so they will accept any analysis in which the mathematics is soundly derived.

I never let anybody have right of regard as to the objective value of my analyses.

Best Regards, André

In classical terms i think the explanation for this is hidden in work energy theorem,which states that change of K.E. is work done then if we can say that work done is stored in form of K.E

Now if we calculate work done which is equal to force ×distance

And F=Ma,

And a=dv/dt

Distance=vdt

So work done = mdv/dt.vdt = 1/2mv^2( if intial velocity u=0)

But main point to be note down here is we can just take a=v/t and d=vt ,which end's up with E=mv^2,but here velocity is not constant throught the distance (s) so we have to take calculus approach

If someone is not comfortable with calculus approach so he can think in terms of average velocity which is equal to u+v/2 then their arises the factor of 1/2 .

Hope I am able to add something in discussion

Dear Andre,

André Michaud

we all cannot read millions of articles and do not know how to find the most important ones. It is more like accasion in absence of publication in prime media.

I mean, that only novelty must be criteria number 1 for selection of lectures. Your didactic way may open also a new view and possibulities for modeling and understanding the physics deeper.

If You want I recomend it to any one physocian to descover with me new knowledge in Relativity, which I described in 15 articles. All are novel and original and it responds to the fundamental basics, the Ralativity and changes it radical. First by discoivering a logic faulire and showing it qualitatively and quantitatively in a versy simple mathematic form.

Thesis Uniform length measurement method corrected a failure caused...

Preprint A discovered 2nd Triplet Paradox of Special Relativity and a...

Preprint A "cosmic billiard" paradox of Special Relativity

Preprint Feather and Glass momentum Paradox of Special Relativity

Preprint Moritz-Paradox: rigorous length contraction of every thing i...

Preprint Planck constant discovered being relativistic and SRT violet...

and solution

Thesis Graviton Doppler and Level Relativity solved a discovered mo...

So You can very fast see all novel ideas and descovered effects and solutions.

I'm sure, that this is true and after a time it will be standard and knowledge of each physician for all time after. The refusers in magazines redaction will be ashamed of even not be able to read. They all are heroes in a list of shame and pure mind.

A novel idea must get full support at highest level to be soread to all scientist, because thsi will produce a faster progress in science.

In my point of view most of you think far too complicated. The answer is simply "for practical reasons". Subham Dhyani in his reply was already close.

If you look back at history, the earliest observation of conservation of energy and momentum was by Huygens, formulated in his laws of collision stating that the sum of m x v2 and the sum of m x v stays constant in a collision. Somewhat afterwards Galilei observed free fall and the swing of a pendulum; they add variation of height in the evaluation, specifically a term m x g x h (h=height) being combined with the term m x v2. A factor of 2 is still missing to fit to the experimental data, allowing the formulation of

2 x m x g x h + m x v2 = const.

or

m x g x h + 1/2 x m x v2 = const.

The second version where 1/2 shows up in what we today called kinetic energy has the advantage that the first term can be simply reformulated as a force multiplied by a distance it acts. Since the latter has significant practical meaning, we call it work, the second formulation became established.

This is the historical way.

Of course you can try to find some theoretical background why there is "2" showing up at all, but the reason for it being part of what we call kinetic energy is simply that it is practical.

Subham Dhyani

Dear Subham,

You wrote: " If someone is not comfortable with calculus approach so he can think in terms of average velocity which is equal to u+v/2 then their arises the factor of 1/2 ."

You are right of course. But another method is possible for beginners, which is to refer to the instantaneous value of a function at specific moments of the progressive change involved. This is the method that I used for key energy levels in such progressions in my didactic approach, because this allows readers to have the immediate possibility of confirming the resulting first level equations with a simple pocket calculator.

You wrote: "Hope I am able to add something in discussion"

Indeed, I for one appreciated your contribution, not only for the above suggestion.

Best Regards, André

ok, how it was derived every one can find in wikipedia or literature. We can be sure, that its true relations.

My aproach is, to ask why in an interaction, when we measure kinetic energy, it seemsexactly the half only of whole mass taking part in that interaction.Somehow the half of mass is "switched off".

And in another interaction, measuring momentum, it seems the whole mass is taking part. Here mass is "switched full".

Physically. How physically it is to unterstand.

And I offered my photon loop model to understand it relativistically and classically in a vividly 3D model.

Of cource, there is also a question about the speed squared v2 in kinetic energy relation, but this stays still ununcwered.

Viktor Schatz

Dear Viktor,

You wrote: " My aproach is, to ask why in an interaction, when we measure kinetic energy, it seems exactly the half only of whole mass taking part in that interaction. Somehow the half of mass is "switched off"."

Note that it is not half the mass which is switched off, but half the kinetic energy.

K =½ mv2 is the same as 2K= mv2, which reveals the total amount of energy induced, that is, the momentum energy proper, plus the transverse energy of the related added mass complement, which falls in harmony with the acceleration equation F=ma.

You wrote: "And in another interaction, measuring momentum, it seems the whole mass is taking part. Here mass is "switched full"."

See above.

You ask: " Of course, there is also a question about the speed squared v2 in kinetic energy relation, but this stays still unanswered."

Actually, the v2 should be written v2/1, 1 being sin 90o, since it relates to velocity parallel to the ground at the Earth surface, and that the force is applied perpendicularly to the direction of motion, between the moving mass and the Earth.

So, the actual equation for the momentum kinetic energy for classical mechanics, for motion in straight line parallel to the ground, really is in reality:

K=½ mv2/sin 90o.

Best Regards, André

André Michaud

You wrote "Note that it is not half the mass which is switched off, but half the kinetic energy."

No, I dont agree. It means not the rest mass energy mc2 but just it happens using half mass. In my modell ofphoton loop we can see it very exactly how.

If we look a slow speed, only the blue half photon is working. If we are at near speed of light, still same is true, but justb the red side is already punped empty and whole energy is then ib the blue site half photon.

And so is also easy to undertand the origin of mass and the equivalence mass = energy.

And You can see, it is another way as ususaly thoght now about rest mass. They interpret a constant rest mass, invariant. The invariance is in photonloop model PhoLoM kept by the relativistic enlargement of all 4 relativistic attributes units. Units. With enlaged units we measuere same old known books invariant values.

SRT never did understand this m0' = y m0.

This You can easy think: in a space shuttle there is time dilation so that means all reativistic attributes must bechanged. length andmass. So the onborard men measures same rest masses of elektronsand protons.but we know on earth,that somethik must be relativisitc changed. -> m0' = y m0.

In shuttle men has particles rest masses with red and blue seides equal, in rest idea. For us his rest mass is enlarged so m0' = y m0.

Photon loop model gives deeper understanding and it explaines that effect discovered, which other theries didnt know, dont want to know and are ignoring and dont want to explain.

rest mass energy mc2 isnt anymore somethink aside for itself, it is same inside and whole energy mass is relativistically between red and blue photonloop sides.

How energy is flowing from red to blue side and back? Can You tell it now?

It is a kinematik,a mechanik of relativity which I developed. There is no flowbetween the red and blue sides. This isjust the relativelymeasurement process,which evry elementary particle is doing in evry iteraction with otherparticles.

Particles are same, equal ones, and somehow they must be able toemasure each other. They do it having on bord own units of legth, time and mass.

Photons and mass particles are both memebers of relativistic effects, so both must have similar tools for that procedure whithin them inside. Ths are wave kength, freqnecy and energy, Planck constant too.

So the effect of changed red and blue is just by measuring with own units. The blue runs towards, andred runs away,and so is also the own struicture ofthe particle.

The whole modell is completed when gravitons come into Doppler shift action, as they are the basic elementary entities responsible innew relativistic mechanik.

Hello Andre,

Innertia is also explained in photon loop. With incredible frequency it loops and so the interactions of photon are multipled and if a photon does have very short time of interaction, the looped photon has very much more repetitions nearly in same location. Also building of all charges and all forces must be in a photon, and are reorganised in mass particles.Thestability also is to findinthat photnloop. This is what I worked out too and will intrdoduce. But I still have fine next descoveries about relativity. I goes, the redaktors willbe again nothappy.

The derivative of the energy is mv, that is, the momentum. So, the equation of motion deduced from the Lagrangian is just the second law of dynamics.