vin300 said:
If you carry out the same calculations I did in the first post I made in this thread, but use vectors, you get this result (you can do it yourself, it's very easy, esp. since I already did it):
\vec{F}=m_o \vec{v}\frac{d\gamma}{dt}+m_o\gamma\frac{d\vec{v}}{dt}
and using my above post,
\frac{d\gamma}{dt}=\gamma^3\frac{|\vec{a}||\vec{v}|}{c^2},
\vec{F}=m_o\gamma^3\vec{v}\frac{|\vec{a}||\vec{v}|}{c^2}+m_o\gamma \vec{a}=m_o\gamma^3\vec{v}\frac{\vec{a}\cdot \vec{v}}{c^2}+m_o\gamma \vec{a}
So,
m_o\gamma\vec{a}=\vec{F}-[(m_o\gamma^3\vec{a})\cdot\frac{\vec{v}}{c}]\frac{\vec{v}}{c}.
According to your author, the following must be true,
m_o\gamma^3\vec{a}=\vec{F}.
This suggests relativistic mass does not exist and that this author goes against mainstream theory. The only guy I know who goes against this is Levvy. We don't like to trust that guy around here. (Read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity#Controversy)
I wouldn't trust this author if I were you, only if you assume relativistic mass does not exist do you get the result you posted.