if you accelerated an object that weighs 3 nanograms from rest to 50% of C what would be the mass
>>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?