there isn't any problem with the "mass" changing, as velocity is added to the material atoms, since the number (quantum) of atoms doesn't change; it's not just implicit in KE=mvv, the obvious problem of stopping something that is going so fast, without being fatally wounded.
still don't get the form of your equation, as to why you put mass as (m) in the denominator of two different fractions (in terms of units: an acceleration over an acceleration, which'd be "dimensionless" number, and a velocity over a number, which is just velocity; so, you've got "number plus velocity = kinetic energy," which seems like a nonsequiter, along side of your syllogisms about your "theory."
> My (m) stands for the object's mass, in pounds. Instead > of E = mc^2 / [1 - v^2/c^2]^1/2, the equation is my own: KE = a/g (m) > + v / 32.174 (m). Einstein's "E" has to be just "KE", because the > energy variable is the object's velocity. Never in the history of the > Universe has increasing an object's velocity caused any mass to add > one atom, let alone to go to infinite mass at velocity 'c' (sic!!!). > Also, Einstein's SR equation is a supreme violation of the Law of the > Conservation of Energy-Mass. In even the first few seconds of a > uniform velocity increase, SR gets out more energy than the force > causing the uniform velocity increase (simple acceleration) has put > in.
sorry, about comparing you to Liebniz, but I can't really apologize to him.