One disproof of EP?

For easier reading, and for having the same symbol to my posts.
Let me assign m = rest mass, then your equation :
F = m0 x v x d(gamma)/dt + m0 x gamma x dv/dt

become F = m.v.d(gamma)/dt + m.gamma.dv/dt
F = m.(v^2/c^2).(gamma^3).dv/dt + m.gamma.dv/dt
F = m.(v^2/c^2).(gamma^3).dv/dt + m.(1-v^2/c^2).(gamma^3)dv/dt
F = m.(gamma^3)dv/dt
F = m.(gamma^3).a
By definition, m_i = F/a
Therefore, m_i = m.(gamma^3). This is exactly what I am telling you, Makis.

Now, to better understand the problem in your reasoning that has caused your wrong coclusions, I would propose that you attempt to solve the following equation for x:

[(x+1)/(x-1)] + [(x-1)/(x+1)] = 2

This, in some abstract way, relates to the problem you posed, so I can go on, only if you can provide a solution.

Hi Makis,
I don't see any relation between your X-Equation and my claim.
Believe it or not, the equation F = (rest mass m).(gamma^3).(acceleration a) is not my equation. It is presented in all text books which have a chapter of SR.
I, then from this equation and definition of initial mass, derived m_i = (restmass m)(gamma^3). Therefore, I claim m_i differs from m_g in value.
Again, I say thank to every one, who can find out any error in my analysis (my first post) and show it to me in details, but please don't beat around the bush.

{quote]

Again, I say thank to every one, who can find out any error in my analysis (my first post) and show it to me in details, but please don't beat around the bush.

[/quote]

There is relation between the equation I posted and your effort to disprove EP via SR. In the same way you are asking details from others on your proof, I ask you to first solve the equation and then I will explain to you what is wrong with you derivation. This is not beating around the bush. This is how things work. Bofore you are ready to understand what you have done wrong, there must be a purification of the way you perceive things to work. Solving that equation for x will provide you with the foundation for going through the purification and understand what you are doing wrong in your disproof. Unless you are ready mentally, even if I tell you will not understand.

Please understand that I am not either beating around the bush or making a joke. x? (this is very simple equation)

Hi Cindy,
I agree with you. Makis's X-equation has no solution and has no relation to your analysis. Your analysis is right, although it is not sufficient to claim EP wrong. One reason for that is SR has not been proved right yet.
However, you have established a new relation between SR and EP, which can be stated as the following:
1/ If SR is right, then EP is not correct.
2/ If EP is right, then SR is not correct.
This new relation can also be read as:
1/ If SR is right, then GR is incomplete.
2/ If GR is right, then SR is not correct.
Cindy, there is no way to disprove your statement, because the analysis is so simple. It sounds like two and two be four.
Your analysis is so great, because:
1/ From now on, there is another chance for scientists who want to disprove GR. They only need to prove SR right.
2/ Scientists can no longer accept both SR and GR.
Scientists who accept SR must reject GR.
Scientists who accept GR must reject SR.
3/ They can no longer combine SR and GR to explain astronomical phenomena. In the past, for many phenomena, in order to make relativitis explanations convincible, they had to combine both SR and GR. Now, all combined explanations collapse. SR or GR alone is very difficult to make an acceptable enplanation for many phenomena.
Your analysis, therefore is really a big achievement in the way of disproving GR, Cindy. I expect physicists recognize scientific value of your analysis soon.
Don't be shy, Cindy. You are welcome to post any idea on the forum. Keep it going on. I am on your side.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

[makis :]
Please understand that I am not either beating around the bush or making a joke. x? (this is very simple equation)

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

OK, makis, I'll bite (against my better judgment)

The solution is x = -x which, absurd as that is,
still makes more sense than the rest of this entire thread,
which remains gibberish. Sorry.