huytoan

Yes, it is. So I’m sory for get quite a few grammar and wording errors. More precisely is then the speed of a body (V) approachs to the speed of light © only, but when V<<c Newtonian mechanics is quite verified. Since, the following your comment: Is not active. In addition, there isn’t use of Newtonian mechanics in my paper! There is only his famous law of universal gravity (when V<<c – OK?). Not at all. In the contrary, this reference frame is always considered as non-inertial one. Gravitational force is always real but isn’t fictitious one in any frame of reference!!! Now, I don’t think so, but it is verified only when the gravitational mass of a body (Ma) is too small with respect to the gravitational mass of the Earth (Mb), that is: Ma<<Mb. Then, inertial mass of a body ma = Ma.Mb/(Ma+Mb)≈ Ma (maybe with the accuracy: 10^-24!). But when Ma is weight enough, for example, Ma=Mb, then ma = Ma/2 - The equivalence principle doesn’t verified at all!

Abstract The inertial phenomenon whose characteristic quantity is that the inertial mass is one of the natural phenomena known soonest but its nature has so far still been a big scientific enigma. On the basis of analyzing trends of cognizing the definition of inertial mass from the past up to present, the author has found another approach to the nature of this phenomenon, that is the limited time of all processes of energy exchange. In the mechanics, the finiteness of the time of energy exchange leads to the motion of the body with the limited acceleration. It does prove the portion between the potential field force and the motion acceleration of the body in the potential force field, that is a constant entity for each body, not depending on its motion; that is the inertial mass that has been hiding for a long term. Thanks to that, it is also to accurate the law of freely falling body and the principle of equivalence is also a long term enigma up to date. In addition, it has developed the general laws of dynamics for all frames of reference, not only for the inertial frame of reference. See full text in attachment: Nature of inertia.pdf

The formula [math]E=mc^{2}[/math] is estimated as one of the top ten of most beautiful formulae at any epoch, but the its demonstration at firth contained mistake by just Great Einstein! The lack of logical fundamental of the Einstein had advised by Aivs in “Journal of the Optical Society Of America”, 42, 540 – 543. 1952. After that, nobody take author’s demonstration no more, but use dependent of inertial mass from velocity of a body: [math]m = \frac{m_{0}}{\sqrt{1-v^{2}/c^{2}}}=m_{0}\gamma[/math] (1) together with the Newton’s 2 law: [math]F = \frac{d(mV)}{dt}[/math] (2) for calculation that formula. But, the new mistake appear and, perhaps, in this situation, not could be recovered!!! First, the itself formula (1) is estimated for only moving uniform straight-line body with the constant velocity V in an inertial reference frame (IRF) and having the inertial mass [math]m_{0}[/math] in reference frame in which the body is at rest. That mind: + If a body moving with the velocity [math]V_{1}[/math], then we have: [math]m_{1}= m_{0}\gamma_{1}[/math]; + If a body moving with the velocity [math]V_{2}[/math], then we have: [math]m_{2} = m_{0}\gamma_{2}[/math]; ..... + If a body moving with the velocity [math]V_{n}[/math], then we have: [math]m_{n}=m_{0}\gamma_{n}[/math]; .... where [math]V_{1}[/math], [math]V_{2}[/math], ... [math]V_{n}[/math] are value of unchanging velocity in a time interval, corresponding to uniform straight-line move of a body, but not value of an instantaneous velocity; similar to that, the [math]m_{1}[/math], [math]m_{2}[/math]...[math]m_{n}[/math] are value of corresponding inertial mass calculated in IFOR1, IRF2, ... IRFn correspondingly, but not value of mass m as function of velocity with usual understanding above a function: [math]m = m(V)[/math], in which V is a variable, because any upheaval of a velocity V lead condition of a IRF is broke – Lorenz’s transformation no longer effective – and then “how can we have the formula (1)?” That right, replace Eq. (1) in to Eq. (2) is unpossible for derivation, because V don’t change, so m must be don’t change too. And this derivation must be equal to zero!!! That the formula [math]E=mc^{2}[/math] has never been proven ???