« Reply #34 on: February 21, 2015, 06:13:07 PM »
Well, indeed, relativistic mass depend on your frame of reference. I should have thought about it, since it directly depends of your kinetic energy. But... SR still disproves FE, and for two reasons : the relativistic doppler effect and the interstellar medium. My research was not in vain.
The first one states that if you are travelling at a relativistic speed compared to a reference frame, all the lightsources in this reference frame will seems to gather together in the same point of your field of view, as demonstrated here :
At an high relativistic speed, this point would be a deadly source of gamma ray, as the doppler effect shorten all the wavelenghs.
Since obviously, we do not experience this, it seems that we are not moving at a relativistic speed.
The second element is simply that if we are travelling at a relativistic speed in the interstellar medium, any atom or sand grain in this medium would become a deadly projectile launched at us with the same speed as we travel. As we are constantly accelerating, each encounter with a mote of dust would become more and more dangerous -as their relative velocity become more and more important- until we encounter a larger rock, that would destroy the earth, or that the total energy deposited by the relativistic collisions heats up the atmosphere, until the point when it become plasma and kill us all. We do not experience this, hence we are not travelling at a relativistic speed.
Gosh, it's like writing xkcd's "What if ?". We should ask Randall Munroe "What if the earth was flat and accelerating upward at 9.8 m.s-2 ?", it could be fun.
Voxhawl, where's your response to this?