return to homepage
return to updates

An Overview
of my
Mass Increase Papers

by Miles Mathis

My papers on Relativity have become so voluminous that it has become necessary to publish a gloss. I have already published a much compressed version of the Mass Increase paper, but even that runs to 11 pages. So in this paper I will just tell the reader my findings and equations, and skip all derivations and all lengthy explanations.
     My book-length critique of the equations of Special Relativity provided me, at the end, with corrected time, length, and velocity transformation equations, including a sort of new gamma. Actually, I derived two new gammas, one for first-degree Relativity and one for second-degree Relativity. Einstein conflated the two degrees, so I had to derive them both by new direct means. I then took these transforms with me into a study of mass increase.
     I began by making several important corrections to Einstein's famous thought problem for mass increase. As in the time and distance transforms, Einstein makes a number of conceptual and mathematical errors in setting up the problem and assigning variables. After I did this, I used my new values for gamma to complete the overhaul. This gave me a new mass transform, which I found was not equivalent to gamma and not equivalent to my time and distance transforms. It was similar in form and very similar in output to some of them, but never equivalent.
     I dubbed this new mass transform kappa. But I found that kappa came in several different forms, depending on the problem. Einstein had oversimplified mass increase just as he had oversimplified time dilation and length contraction. I found that kappa's form must vary slightly depending on several factors, including whether a mass was absorbing energy from a field, emitting energy, traveling toward an observer or traveling away. All these situations yielded a slightly different form for kappa.

This new transform and the conceptual corrections made to Einstein's thought problem also allowed me derive the classical energy equation directly from my new relativistic equation. What I mean by this is that I was able to prove that Newton's equation is not an approximation at low speeds, as current theory tells us; it is a mathematically precise equation that, if applied properly, can be applied to any kinetic energy problem, even a relativistic one. Its only limitation is that it does not allow a scientist to use the variable c, which certainly limits its usefulness in many situations. The new relativistic equations expand the usefulness of the classical equation, but they do not falsify it in any way.
     I prove this mathematically by showing that the correct relativistic equation resolves into the classical equation in each and every situation, by a very simple algebraic manipulation. For example, I show that
K = κ mrc2 - mrc2 = mv2/2
Where κ = 1 + [v2/(2c2- 3cv)]

One of the tricks in this resolution is to realize that the "m" in the classical equation must be a moving mass, not a rest mass. One must be careful to do the correct substitution. Only a moving mass has kinetic energy, but for some reason current textbooks assume that Newton was always dealing with a rest mass. In other equations, such as the gravitational equations, he is dealing with a rest mass. But in the kinetic energy equation, he cannot logically be plugging in a rest mass, since his mass must be in motion by definition.

One important outcome of my corrected transforms for mass is that, in the accelerator problem (where the mass is gaining energy from the field) the total energy is not mc2:
ET ≠ mc2
ET = mc2[1 - (3v/2c) + (v2/2c2)]
ET = mrc2[1 + (v/2c)]
                 [1 - (v2/c2)]

This last equation shows you why gamma works so well in the accelerator problem, despite being incorrect. I have had to make dozens of conceptual and algebraic corrections to Einstein's math in hundreds of pages of analysis, but at the end I come up with a correction that is very slight in this particular experimental situation. Einstein was either very fortunate in his mistakes, or he was very savvy at pushing his math where he knew it needed to go.
     Even in the accelerator problem, there are slight variations in the transforms due to the experimental set-up, and these variations are currently being ignored. Einstein gave experimenters only one transform, and they now try to apply it to every kinetic energy situation. I show that this is a mistake. The release of energy at the end, in collision, demands different transforms than the gaining of energy from being accelerated, and scientists are currently using equations that are too simple. They also often fail to take into account the operational facts of their machines: how, precisely, these machines gather data. The transforms must take into account whether the masses in question are approaching a detection device, fleeing that device, or passing it at a tangent. Since the current interpretation of Relativity is that direction of motion is unimportant, and since I have proved that this is false, the findings from accelerators cannot possibly be as precise as we are told.

Finally, using my corrected transforms and some simple theory from another paper, I am able to show why the accelerator yields a maximum moving mass for the proton of 108 times its rest mass. This experimental fact has never before been explained and is one of the primary mysteries of mass increase. I show a simple algebraic equation that yields this number.