436 Prof. F. Slate on an 



into field-building. Remark further that in fact (dm/dt) 

 may enter as an algebraic sum, embracing changes in electric 

 and magnetic field ; also the release of internal energy 

 seemingly occurring in a deformable electron. The term 



-| v 2 -^- dt ) itself, therefore, must here be symbolic of a 



difference between change in "structural" energy and change 

 in kinetic energy. With appropriate standardization of its 

 zero-phase, it is in nature a kinetic potential. Interesting 

 confirmation of our trend is the agreement in magnitude, 

 for earlier accepted data, on segregating magnetic energy as 

 kinetic, and the remainder as electric. 



Identifying our (m ) as the "Minkowski mass" of an 

 electron, equations (9, 10) are formally identical with a group 

 to which relativity has given currency ; a remark extensible 

 to the momentum-value 



Q = mv = ?n y(v)v. . . . . . (11) 



Yet not without also making two qualifications : first, this 

 derivation keeps (F) uniquely as basis, while the relativity- 

 values apply to the specified group (U) equally; and 

 secondly, this form of correspondence requires the limitation 

 to constant inertia (m ) [Relativity], as opposed to variable 

 inertia (m) [Newton] . This indicated purchase-price for 

 relativity's indifference toward any particular frame rewards 

 closer scrutiny of its consequences; e.g., imaginary force,, 

 and quaternionic velocity. 



Connecting (F, U) are now relations verifiable directly 

 from equations (2, 6, 8): 



i.' B =(l-^V.; «'T„=— T.'; vT = -H—T.'. (12> 



V 2 V ~~~c* 



Consequently if, without departure from c.G.S. units, we 

 define a new variable speed (v c ) for (m) and recalculate : 



, v — u v' Vc +n 



Vc = 



uv 1 uv .. uv c 



1? i ~'7 + c 2 



i-5 (i-?)( 1+ 'f) 



it follows that 



