if you accelerated an object that weighs 3 nanograms from rest

>>8955528
bumping since none of you brainlets seem to be able to solve this question

>>8955528
Still 3 nanograms.

>>8955548
>Sr
>uses grams
>calls other people brainlets

Gtfo

>>8955528
Grams are objective

>>8955627
It's relativistic mass would be higher my dude, as even rotational energy contributes to an objects mass.

>>8955650
That wasn't the question. For many decades now, "mass" means "rest mass", and "relativistic mass" has almost entirely fallen out of use.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo232kyTsO0

>>8955528
Use that mass dilation formula from high school

Just times the rest mass by the cosecant of the ratio of fifty-two three hundred twelfths of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, dingus.

>>8955627

This.

>>8955528
1.155 * 3ng

>>8955528
3.46410162 nanograms (give or take), as per the special relativity equations

>>8955528
almost 8 kg

>>8957330
Shut the fuck up, nerd.

>>8957330
tree fiddy. cool

3 x .5 = 1.5 grams

>>8955528
>what would be the mass
in what frame of reference?