Relativistic mass has no realistic mechanism, it pops out of an equation. My small steps suggest one: the more the speed increases, the more the steps get long, so there is a limit to the length of the steps due to the limited speed of the information that induces them. The steps cannot change their frequency, so the longer they get, the faster they have to go. A step starts at zero speed and ends at zero speed, so its top speed in the middle has to be more important than its mean one, namely the speed of the molecule it is part of. When a molecule is accelerated at close to the speed of light, the middle speed of the steps between its atoms gets so fast that light can hardly reach them, so they resist more to their acceleration than at low speed.Andrex » December 8th, 2016, 11:35 am wrote:Kinetic energy is related to mass in the equation E=MV/2. How can you figure out that it is not?

That's just it; I don't figure it out. For exemple; the more you add speed to a particle the more that particle gains mass. But the reality shows that a massless particle has "light speed", and neutrinos with almost no mass have almost "light speed".

How do you figure that out?

You are mixing inertial mass and gravitational mass. Einstein said they were equivalent, but again, he did not suggest any mechanism to support his proposition. Since, with the small steps, any motion must be executed by steps, gravitational motion and inertial motion are more than equivalent, they simply depend on the same mechanism. I associate the information that would induce the gravitational steps to gravitational redshif: if doppler effect was inducing the inertial steps of my animation, it is the redshift from the steps of the right atom that would induce the steps of the left one. Blueshift induces a step away from the source, and redshift induces a step towards the source. If the steps could account for gravitational redshift, then they could account for gravitational force, but it means that this redshift would not be due to an expansion motion. It could be due to a slow increase in the frequency of the inertial steps with time for instance. Looking at atoms from other galaxies, we would see slower frequencies than those of atoms near by. The farther the galaxy, the slower its frequencies.I agree with "on Earth"; but the experience has to give the same result in "flat space-time"; which I'm not sure of.

Assuming that in "flat space-time" there's no gravitation, there should not be any resistance even if the particle has mass. This is what I'm nor sure of. If you are, tell me.