For the first time all the answers!!! In:
THE INERTIAL MASS.

With this model the S.R. can be understood easily like any known mechanism of common life.

THE INERTIAL MASS, EXPANDED CONCEPT ©

This is still a inconplete version of the spanish page. We are working to complete it.

Applying the old method of the black box to the study of mass, soon it reveals as a system able to interaction with the exterior through input and output impulses. Curiuosly, the increase of mass and its two possible observable magnitudes, as we know, dilation, of time and speed, seem to come from the balance between the input-output impulses. Finally all this has reason when we consider mass as a particular structure of impulses.

 The concept of mass presents us, even today, with one of the most exquisite and imposing mysteries that Nature has managed to keep beyond the advance of human understanding. It constitutes, therefore, one of the last bastions refusing to be fully absorbed into the vast wealth of knowledge that modern physics and rational thought have accumulated. Since almost three Centuries ago, when Isaac Newton described the concept of mass, illustrating the laws of Force and Inertia, it has been relegated to a " serpent eating its tail " conundrum. It is in fact a crucial concept, one which all related others depend on ; energy, velocity, force, acceleration, impulse and time. In other words, the only one that is essential to explain all others and needs all the others to be properly described itself.

When Einstein published the Theory of Spatial Relativity, almost a century ago, nothing changed in ideas concerning the concept of mass since the Relativity theory only specified the already known existing relations between mass and its associated concepts. Among such specifications it is worth noting the impossibility of exceeding the velocity of light and the growth of mass as it begins to approach such speeds.

Without for a moment questioning its undeniable value , revealing as it did such important aspects of physical reality, it was, nevertheless, a theory that did not satisfactorily clarify the fundamental issues it dealt with, leaving us, if possible, even more dumfounded than we were before. New questions repeatedly arose without satisfactory answers. What does it mean that time dilates ? Why is it impossible to exceed the velocity of light ? Why does mass increment when it is accelerated ?. We only know that the formulas say so and that it all seems to wok that way as experiments show us, but why ?

Till now, no theory has explained the underlying mechanism that causes such things to happen. In fact, you don't have to be a genius to work out that the Relativity Theory falls short on common sense.

Newton discovered neither time nor force, these were well known facts like gravity which was, evidently, also known. So what did Newton discover ? Where was the tremendous value inherent in his ideas ? It seems that their great value lies in the organisation of all the individual concepts into a interrelated system. In visualising the exact relationship of these conceptual elements as a whole and on analysing the grey areas in the common pool of knowledge that were taken for granted so that, what appeared to be so evident , was shown to contain many surprises for whoever dared reflect a little further on how and why did these mundane and obvious things happened . The factors were force , time velocity and acceleration. Factors which represented the characteristics of an object when it came to defining its response to a given force, taking into account the fact that different objects react differently to the same given force. To these original factors work was later added as it was obviously related to them.. As we can see, common everyday concepts which were continuously needed and put to use. Anyone knew that if you applied more force you increased velocity and that the faster you travelled the less time it took to get there, but no one knew precisely how much more force to apply to get there exactly three minutes faster. The problem was that no one knew the exact relationship between the concepts of force, time and velocity. The time had come to quantify.

The world changed for ever from that moment. Many other men followed and contributed individual key ideas so that these concepts could be put to practical use. Thus, the first steam engines did not take too long to appear. These embodied the new way of using what was known then about the concept of energy and paved the way for the Industrial Revolution which was , after all, just another more powerful and efficient way of exploiting nature for the benefit of mankind.

Strangely, science seems to have cast aside this old problem that so occupied the last years of Einstein's life. Science forgets its debt to philosophy which necessarily precludes all scientific theory and which originates in intuition and pure thought. Finally , science's inability to satisfactorily answer some basic questions has resulted in some people making some lamentable incursions into the realms of the irrational.

New capable ideas are needed to solve these old questions, ideas drawn from the rich and ample perspectives that science has provided during recent years. Time is critical since otherwise it will be the irrational , having been almost vanquished, which will again rule or, at least, so it would appear judging from the increasing number of people participating in all kinds of movements and organisations whose line of work borders markedly on the irrational..

With this in view, the present work could make a positive contribution, filling the present vacuum of logical reasoning surrounding the subject of mass, hopefully proving , once again, that with science as an ally the answers are there waiting only to be found.

Till now, we have dealt with a brief history and description of the mass phenomenon and its allies.

We shall now try to deal as clearly as possible with the present conceptual state of mass. We have what is generally known and accepted. On the other hand we have several theories that try to explain the facts with varying degrees of success. The present work does not attempt to change anything stated in the theory under discussion. It sets out merely to amplify and make clearer some key factors in the generally accepted Spatial Relativity theory. A restructuring of concepts that leads us to conclusions that, however apparently obvious, do not cease to be surprising and markedly revolutionary in present day physics.

The aims of this work are twofold. The first is to present mass as an omni-directional phenomenon, the second is to propose viewing mass as an economic system under strict accounting scrutiny whose Entry/Exit currency unit is the impulse. This view can hardly raise any objections, there is nothing speculative about it . It is , in fact, a simple idea that once considered and accepted is easily followed by anyone. If the reader wishes, now is the time to pursue on his or her own by trying it out with an example and checking if the accounting balances out. Alternatively, an easier course is to read on since this is precisely what we are setting out to do. Once the first idea is accepted , the second follows easily enough without any sudden surprises or leaps in logic. It merely involves observing the development of the parameters generated by the first consideration ( i.e. mass as an omni-directional phenomenon ) when we alter the balance of accounts by increasing our entry currency by means of an impulse in any given direction. The conclusions we will be forced to arrive at will make us wonder whether we have not strayed too close to the speculative and whether it would be wiser to undertake some verification by experiment. This would start to happen when we find ourselves talking of concepts like the morphology of mass reaction, time as an area etc. Nevertheless what will become apparent is the basic logical coherence of the idea in any stage of its unfolding . In order to avoid becoming entangled in nebulous asides we shall use actual physics as a reference when delineating key facts.

Description of inertial mass, key concepts:

1- Mass has an associated value, it is quantifiable.

2- States of mass,

I) In rest, or mass sub0 (msub0); the minimun mass of a known mass object shich is, for example, mass "a" of 1kg. Speed =0. Energy =mc^2.

II) Speed (v=space/time).

III) movement (mass by speed)

IV) Mass increased above a state of rest (owing to speed) M sub n. Kinetic energy "k". K=M sub n *C^2

3- Mass only interacts through impulse. Impulse is described as the product of force through time (F*t).

4- The reacction of mass is equal in every direction. "Mass is in that case a physical phenomenon of multi-directional character given to an object".

5- Force is the cause capable of alterring the state of mass. It has a quantifiable modules, path and direction.

6- Time, this is the force factor in the concept of impulse.

With this inter-play of elements it is possible to decribe all the known facts about the phenomenon mass.

Known facts about inertial mass.

Fact 1- We start off with the initial mass "A" in a state of rest. It receive force at some time from another masical object "X" that i to say, an impulse P,. The consequences are:

I) The state of rest of "A" is modified, its speed increases and though this it begins to move in the same paht and direction as the received force.

II)"A" reacts to the received force emiting towards "X" an impulse of similar magnitude but in the opposite direction.

III) There is an increase in mass in "A" (Kinetic energy "K").

IV) Increase in time directly proportional to the increase in mass.

Fact 2

I) With successive impulses applied to the masical object "A" it is seen that the increases in kinetic energy (m sub n) do not have a linear relationship with the successive quantities P sub 1 of impulses aplied, tending to increase with each subsequent applied impulse.

II) With successive inpulses applied to the massical object"A" its spedd also tends to increase in a non-lineat way but in an apposite maner. That is to say, increasing by a smaller rate with esach amount P sub 1 of impulse given.

So far we have dealt with the conplete conceptual description of the phenomenon mass and its associated elements.

When we push an object, when we give it an impulse, its velocity increases as does its energy level, but a point is reached where velocity cannot be increased, so the energy level increases. This can only happen because the mass quantity changes, it increments, Thus, the applied impulse is "transformed" into energy or mass. Maybe the term is not entirely correct, since what is impulse ? A form of energy, say. So we have a form of energy which becomes another of energy called mass to which it is added resulting in more mass. So what happened to the impulse ? Well , it is not really lost, we can say that it has been added to that which the mass system originally contained because, one thing that becomes evident when we reverse the process or decelerate, is that we need to apply our given force for a longer period of time in order to return to the original lower velocity. More time is needed ? Then we can conclude that the growth of mass is directly related to an equal growth in time. We talk then of time dilation. Obviously, the velocity does not increase but the time needed to decelerate or return to a given lower velocity has to increase. We could then even talk in terms of returning to a predetermined mass. We have then two conceptual quantities that increase or decrease with the arrival of impulses to the mass system, depending on the energy state it is in when said impulses arrive and also on the direction these are travelling. If the mass system is in a state of rest when the impulse is applied, its velocity and mass increase as well as reaching a new energy level .It is possible to return to its original energy state by applying a similar impulse but in the opposite direction from the original one. When this is the case, mass is decreased and the system's energy level returns to minimum. When mass is in a highly incremented state, the same happens to time in direct proportion. This , obviously, is the case when the mass system is close to maximum velocity "C". When this happens, any negative impulse, in other words , one from the opposite direction than the one being presently followed , will act negatively on the system's energy state. In other words time and energy will decrease and the system will tend to return to a state of rest of rest or minimum energy. One thing becomes apparent, we have a quantity of mass "A" which can be increased when an impulse in a given direction is applied to it and that this can be destroyed when we apply a similar impulse in the opposite sense, what is more, it is possible to generate create a new mass with these same impulses once it has passed through a state of "minimum energy/ minimum mass., yet, the new generated mass " B " is different to the original mass "A" because it was created by the same impulses that helped decrease and cancel it out. Does this mean that we can have as many types of mass as there are possible directions ? There does not seem to be any reason to prevent this taking place.

We can now ask ourselves what precisely is the nature of this state of minimal energy in our balance of accounts ? In other words, if we have a mass "A" for one direction and a mass "B" for another each constituted by masses under uni-directional impulses, what impulses and in what direction do they operate when the mass system is in a state of rest or minimum energy ? We can only say that whatever they may be they have the important characteristic of allowing increases of energy in any direction (I :E : omni-direcctional ) when an impulse arrives and is integrated to the mass system. We also know that it can be assumed that they must be in a state of balance for no resulting movement to exist. Could the initial mass be an amalgam of impulses from all directions ? Well let us leave the answer to that pending.

In fact, an impulse is pure energy , in other words, mass when the mass object has achieved maximum velocity. This is a verifiable fact. So, we have an impulse that leads to an increase in mass, energy and time. What is the conceptual relationship these elements maintain with each other till the bitter end in their mad race towards the velocity of light ? There we have them maintaining an equivalency that confounds us. Is time energy ? It seems so since the energy level rises with the increase of time. Is time mass ? so it would seem ; when time is increased the same happens to mass. Equally, we know that

energy = mass multiplied by the velocity of light squared. But which is the actual element that increases and causes the others to do the same. If the four elements increase in tandem which one is responsible for the increase ? If we give it some thought , there seems to be no answer but impulse. On its arrival, all the others are incremented in proportion to it An impulse is, in fact, a force that is applied for a length of time so force is another element that enter our equation. . If you want more impulse you a apply the original force for a longer time or you can increase the force during your original time span. Time and velocity are the factors responsible for the amount of energy released on impact yet the amount of velocity reached is dependant on the force applied. Accepting this it is possible to understand how it is possible to increase velocity and shorten time but cannot increase time by simply decreasing

velocity. This becomes obvious when we begin to think of impulse as the product of the two factors ; Force and Time ( Ft ) and that for a given quantity of impulse , if one factor is increased the other must necessarily be decreased. A logical path seems to open before us that leads to a clearer conception of the existing relationship between the elements under discussion. To recapitulate : An impulse arrives, does velocity increase ? Yes, the force of impact is increased but the length of time of actual impact does not or very little. So, the length of time for the impact remains almost constant. We get an impulse with more tension and more velocity, there is more energy involved but not more time. Therefore, the growth of energy is due to the increase of tension or force.

Let us try again. More impulse arrives. Does the velocity increase ? No. Then the impulse is being applied for a longer period of time. The tension during impact is not greater only the length of time taken grows. Another question. Why did the velocity not increase ? Because the tension or, in other words, the force was not. Why did the force not increase ? Answer unknown. We can reach an important conclusion though, ; force has a maximum limit. We shall call this maximum force Force One. An important conclusion, then, is that force has a maximum limit and we shall refer to it as Force One. Nothing could be simpler to understand ; Force is the direct cause of velocity since the quickest way to increase our velocity is to apply more Force. So force is synonymous with velocity and viceversa. What happens when the velocity of an object cannot be increased ? This is the case described in the Relativity Theory when objects begin to approach the velocity of light "C". We may consider that each mass object has an associated force and that the availability of this force, for whatever reason, has a limit . Is it possible for us to learn what cause this limitation of available forces in mass bodies ? This question is an interesting variation of another : is it possible to explain what causes the limit velocity  in mass objects ?

This is the old chestnut to which there is not, at present, any satisfactory answer. perhaps by asking the question in a new way as above we may be able to find one. The route taken will, at least, be a new one.

It is worth noting the fact that even if impulse, or the appliance of force during a period of time, is the only direct cause of a change in the state of energy in a mass body ( remembering that mass only directly interacts with impulse) a direct lineal relation cannot be seen between the applied impulses and the changes registered in its energy level. To put it another way, we apply a known impulse to a mass and then observe the changes in its energy level. Strangely, when we repeat the operation with an identical impulse we note that the change in energy level is greater. How is this possible ? It does not appear to be logical and we need an explanation. When we study a graph relating applied impulse to energy level we can verify that , at first, the change in energy is slight where only a part of the impulse applied seems to be related to the increase of energy. This relation seems to recover gradually as we approach the velocity of light till it reaches maximum yield or, in other words, so much impulse applied ; so much energy increase. This is, if possible, even more interesting and surprising because, finally, energy = impulse times the velocity of light ( E = P * C ) or, in other words, .m * C ^ 2 = P * C . So much impulse, so much mass. Is impulse equivalent to mass ? It seems so, at least, when the mass object approaches the velocity of light the relation is : P = m * C. In the above case we would use the Newton / second as our vector unit of impulse.

The above could be assumed by taking for granted that impulse and energy are two different entities. Let us look at the mechanical formulae A ( Ft ) for impulse and B ( A = maS ) for energy. It is a known fact that identical impulses have different effects depending on the mass to which they are applied. For example : a mass of 1 Kg will react with more velocity than a mass of 20 Kg. When the same impulse is applied to both. According to the above formulas it will not only react with more velocity but, also, with more energy. How can something appear so obvious and illogical at the same time ? On the other hand, mass is also capable of absorbing the impulse and conserve its energy as m*v.

Before continuing we must grasp the full implications of something so apparently simple as an impulse or a force applied for a period of time. Is it possible to apply a force in some manner independently of the time ? I think no such thing has ever existed.. The Universe, at least as far as the human eye can perceive, moves and exists as the result of temporary and sporadic forces that act within it in one direction or another. It seems to be a mechanism that has forever been set in motion and which continues to exist without any apparent loss of activity. Sometimes forces flow in one direction, then the other , even sometimes its opposite but forever forward without pause distributing themselves through space and time appearing before our eyes in the only way they can : as impulses. There can be no doubt, all existence is composed of impulses, of forces that as well as having intensity of force and direction have also a well delimited time span. We can therefore conclude that if there is something fundamental and basic that constitutes all existence it has to be that phenomenon we call impulse...

Taking into account such a common phenomenon as force of reaction , we can follow a logical path towards understanding the other phenomenon we call mass. If we accelerate a mass object using a rocket, the rocket will be opposed by a force that originates from the mass being accelerated itself this is the well known force of reaction. We know that the force applied by the rocket comes from the energy accumulated in the fuel but where does the force of reaction exerted by the mass object come from ? The only answer I have ever found to this obvious question in all consulted text books is always the same : inertia. This is unsatisfactory and makes nothing clearer. Is inertia a free source of energy meaning expenditure on the rocket's part and none for the mass object ? Why not think of it simply as a force that originates from the mass object and that , like all forces, cannot just appear from nowhere without involving consumption of available energy as is the rocket's case ? Certainly, the one thing that is clear

is that the force comes from the object we are accelerating. Does mass posses a source of energy with which it is able to respond to the propulsion system with a counter force ? The answer is obvious ; it must have because this is , in fact, what happens. To assume this means not only that mass is energy but that part of it must be lost creating the reaction forces. Not only that, it must also have a means of redirecting part of its energy as an impulse in the opposite direction from the entry impulse and even more puzzling how come the mass is not reduced even when some of its energy must be spent creating the reaction force ? We could explain this by saying that , although impulse is lost in the opposing direction to the entry impulse, it is gaining in the direction of travel so that the total quantity of mass or energy is actually increasing. We know this increase happens because the Relativity Theory says it does and that it has been be proved by experiment on several occasions and we also know that the amount of impulse is larger on entry that in exit from the mass system. Since we also know that mass increases in proportion to successive identical applied impulses ( Entry impulses ) it can only mean that the impulse spent in reaction force eventually diminish so tilting the Entry/Exit balance in favour of the former. This brings us back to the beginning of our reasoning when we were considering an object mass spending itself to produce reaction impulses and whether the reaction capacity of mass gradually ceases. It seems so and this could explain why, when it eventually does cease, the impulse/energy relation becomes linear and equivalent as in so much entry impulse, so much exit energy increase. Is mass really just a collection of impulses ? In any case all seems to indicate that both the mass gained and the mass lost are dependant on a flow of impulses in one direction or another. With this in mind , we can begin to perceive the movement from another perspective since, apparently it depends between the degree of imbalance between impulses in one direction and from its opposite which make up the total mass of the system. Mass can then be outlined as a set made up of different quantities of impulse in one direction and its opposite. In fact, if we take into account that the described mechanism of reaction works on mass objects when impulse is applied from any direction, then, we must consider mass as a set consisting of impulses in all potential directions or as an omnidirectional set of impulses. On the other hand , the fact that the impulses available to respond in any one direction eventually run out clearly indicates that the quantity of available impulses in a mass x for any given direction are finite and quantifiable.

If we think of mass in a state of rest as an omni-directional system of bounded impulses, in other words, a system under tension but in equilibrium and that velocity is a state of imbalance between the impulses in a direction and its opposite, then, we can assume that the arrival of a given volume of unit-directional impulses added to those already present in the initial mass and moving in the same direction would cause different amounts of imbalance depending on whether they enter a larger or smaller original volume of mass. Thus reinforcing the idea of this model where mass is described as a "system of omni-directional impulses"...

When it is nearly a century since the Special Relativity Theory appeared, the organised complex of arguments that was always felt missing for its complete understanding is born. The theory of mass in impulses (IM) gives us a rational and complete idea of the concept of mass and the underlying mechanisms over which, without knowing them, Special Relativity has always been working on.

With the theory of mass in impulses, another theory, the Special Relativity (SR) recuperates all its common sense after being a mystery too long.

The theory of mass in impulses gives us a geometrical model that describes mass and its relation with the rest of the elements implicated in SR.

Although the model does not modify its actual essence, this is, its formulas, it shows us a good collection of new concepts and some formulas that these stand on. Between them we must point out the precision done about the concept of time and force, where time is described as an area , and force would have a maximum limit, this is, force 1.

Among its conclusions it also describes a limit to the phenomena of reaction, as this model shows that each object has "only" half of its mass at rest as "fuel" to consume in the production and maintenance of the impulses of reaction.

Finally, you can be sure that the contents of this book are about real new aspects of the SR, and it amplifies and completes up to now to unsuspected limits. Because of this, this is the book that can answer all those questions that we have always had with SR.