I=M is not sufficient in describing inertia. This was Einstein’s relationship, but this equivalence does require the motion of a moving body F=Ma or more precisely, p=Mv. Since momentum itself is the measure of mass in motion, it makes logical sense to assume that inertia is the product of a mass in motion, and excluding all together the idea of a mass at rest. The ability to speed up an object, and the ability to slow down an object, is independent of a single mass in motion, whilst requiring an external force to do so F=Ma, which means inertia can be seen as strictly the restriction of acceleration and restriction of deceleration of an object. Whether is it at rest, should not matter in the long run. The ability to speed up and object and the ability to slow it down, truly is the real form or definition of inertia, without bring in the implications of rest mass, or an invariant mass term.

So is this a new idea? Yes it is, because Einstein strictly related the rest mass of an object to the property, or even measure of the inertia of the said system. My idea is to rid of this complication and bring in only the measure of motion and related to the mass (whether relativistic or rest) – which means that even a photon could have an inertial property, and this would be interesting to see what could transpire from such concepts. The idea of I=M is insufficient, because it requires a more descriptive term, without relying on the rest energy concept of matter.

A few equations I derived can help me describe this. I had the strange idea, that force is also related to the Kinetic Energy of a moving mass, which I evidently proved. This was the following analysis of my conclusions:

This is Einstein’s (actually it wasn’t his originally), famous formula;

E=Mc²

Add E to both sides

2E=Mc² + E

Divide by 2 from both sides

E= ½ (Mc² + E)

Which is ironically very similar to the Kinetic Energy Equation, E= ½ Mv². Manipulating the above equation through algebra gives;

E-½ E= ½ Mc²

Then just solving the left hand side gives

½ Mc²= ½ Mc² [1]

Whilst not a very appealing result: it still has its use. Half the energy of a system is indeed required to set a thing into motion, this kinetic motion, is also related to force, I speculate. Plugging [1] into the right hand side and raising the value of the left hand side of the well-known equation E=Fvt where energy equals force times mass times time gives;

½(Fvt)²= ½ E²

Which states that half of the energy of a system also is the same as the force exerted on that system. From an equation I derived to find the time,

t=(vt/E)mv

With some algebraic manipulation (if one wants to see these algebraic operations, I am quite happy to show and even explain how its done on request), one can arrive at:

E=(mv/t)vt

Plugging in the equation above into the force-energy equation I derived ½(Fvt)²= ½ E² gives the relationship between mass, energy and force;

E ½(Fvt)²= ½ E²(Mv/t)vt

Divide both sides of this equation by E², and we get the energy relationship due to the force exerted on the system, or the force exerted on the system which is due to energy. The energy is found to be proportional to half of the energy of the system. More or less, the value obtained is the same as the following:

½ E= ½ Fvt

In other words, one can say that:

E_k=½Mv²=½(Fvt)

Which is my new equation deriving the kinetic energy and force. These equations are older, but they will have their uses.

The final equation here, helps to derive a relationship between the kinetic energy, and the force required to sustain that energy, as also related to the energy content (½Mc²) since (½Mc²)=(½Mv²). It seems that inertia might also be related to the equations, so in short, under the application of my rule that rest energy is not really needed to describe the inertia of a system, the same principle can arise for inertia under the similar premises thought of in ½ E= ½ Fvt.

So as I have proved, the force is related to motion, but is also related to the energy required for motion, which is itself the kinetic motion of matter. If inertia is, as I proclaim, the measure of motion in matter, which must be the same thing somehow as the momentum of a body, then the inertia of a body must be zero at rest. But is matter ever at rest? It may cause a problem that inertia be the total measure of mass, because the measure of mass is not equivalent to the motion of matter: only the relativistic mass is equivalent to the motion of matter, which is simply the measure of a changing energy.

Is there a way around the idea of a mass at rest? The other idea I have is that inertia isn’t a total measure of the system in question with mass. Inertia might not be I=M in general, as I presumed at the beginning of this work, so the idea of inertia may be completely wrong.

Indeed, if you introduce the concept of a rest mass, and a rest energy, then the idea of a slowing down or a speeding up seems redundant at best. Momentum is required in this picture, and may have no real effects with rest energy at all. Mass is not a measure of motion, however, if inertia is, then I=M is made erroneous at best. So perhaps, dare I say, Einstein had it wrong, including all those behind him?

I have more to post soon, which will incorporate a new theory on inertial equations.