Is Moving Mass Really a Thing?

At some point, in modern physics, we (will) study Einstein's relativity and come across with the stationary mass and moving mass terms. When I learned about it, it kind of made sense. But, over time I thought that this was strange. If you want to know why, take a look at the image below.

(source: youstupidrelativist.com)

According to Einstein's theory of relativity, many things are not absolute, such as speed, object length, time, and so on. In fact, it all depends on which frame of reference we look at, there is nothing wrong with that. For the picture above, it can indeed be explained by a long contraction (length contraction). However, the question is, does the mass of the person actually change as he moves about a certain frame of reference?

To answer that, I've thought and done some research so that I can draw a conclusion: relativistic mass theory is probably obsolete! In essence, moving mass actually does not exist in my opinion.

What is mass?

According to Wikipedia, mass means property or ownership of an object. According to classical physics, the greater the mass of an object, the harder it is to make it accelerate when a force is applied to it. According to modern physics, mass is actually the same as energy, only in a different form. This is also known as mass-energy equivalence.

Modern physics has succeeded in explaining how an object can have a certain mass. Objects, apart from being composed of atomic nuclei (protons and neutrons) and electrons, are also composed of particles that cannot be seen by the naked eye. One type is the gluon sub-particle which bridges between the particles in the atomic nucleus to exert a strong force of attraction. The stronger the field flux produced by the gluon, the stronger the force. Well, the attractive force is the origin of the energy we know as bond energy. However, the actual mass of an object comes from that energy. So, that's the origin of the mass of objects.

Does velocity change mass?

(source: Studying Physics Made Practical by Aip Saripudin et al., in Indonesian)

According to this formula, the mass of an object depends on its velocity. Since the denominator is always less than 1, the moving mass will always be greater than the rest mass. The same statement is also found in the Physics textbook by Marthen Kanginan.

So, when we think a little, if we drop an object as small as sand at a speed close to light, say 290,000,000 m/s, the formula will be:

But:

The denominator approaches 0 as the speed approaches the speed of light. So, even moving mass must approach infinity! Very strange result, how can an object have such a large mass just because its velocity is large? That's what started my line of thought about this.

Secondly, if the mass of the object becomes very large because of the velocity, how does the velocity affect the sub-particles in the object so that the bond energy becomes very large? Through friction? However, in outer space there is no air resistance, right? Scientists at that time still could not explain this phenomenon. The concept of relativity becomes even more complicated with the moving mass term.

What goes beyond this

Now, scientists define mass as an inherent property of an object, another term is mass invariant. That is, the mass does not depend on the frame of reference of the observer of an object. If an observer at rest sees an object with a mass of three kilograms, an observer in motion will see an object with a mass of three kilograms as well.

In my opinion, what increases with the relativistic velocity is the kinetic energy. The greater the speed, the greater the kinetic energy. So, it is the increase in energy that makes an object seem heavier and denser, because of the mass-energy equivalence described above. Mass and energy are similar, so we think that mass is changing, when actually it is not.