Lorentz transformation of mass

According to the equation v/c = tanh(at/c), the earth should be moving at a speed REALLY close to the speed of light:

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=tanh%28g*%286000+years%29%2Fc%29&a=UnitClash_*c.*SpeedOfLight.dflt--&a=UnitClash_*g.*StandardAccelerationOfGravity--

so the Lorentz factor is HUGE. Since mass is equal to the Lorentz factor times rest mass, this would imply that the mass of, well, anything on earth, is so big by now that we should all collapse into a black hole. Or did I go wrong somewhere?

(I'm not a YEC, I'm just using a lower bound that most people can agree with)

According to to what I've seen, according to FE theory, gravity (and by extension, essentially the entirety of physics) doesn't exist.  I don't think you'll get anywhere using your, dare I say, "fancy mathematics" here.  You have to keep things really simple.

Edit: Wait a second, how does that theory work again?  Does the change in mass permit continued constant acceleration, or is the point of the changing mass to discourage any further acceleration, so as to not exceed the speed of light?  I'm not a physicist, so I wouldn't know.  It seems that the implication here is that the energy required for FE's "universal accelerator" or whatever to continue to accelerate the earth upward at 9.8 ms^-2 would necessarily diverge to infinity to counteract the huge increase in mass by the Lorentz transformation.

They believe in mass! Mass is not gravity. But we wouldn't feel an increasing of mass. How should we? We are under constant acceleration. But we would get huge problems if we collide with something - even a particle! - that is not accelerated by the same rate as us.

They believe in mass! Mass is not gravity. But we wouldn't feel an increasing of mass. How should we? We are under constant acceleration. But we would get huge problems if we collide with something - even a particle! - that is not accelerated by the same rate as us.

So according to FE theory, that asteroid that recently hit Russia didn't run into US, WE ran into the asteroid.

Huh.

My understanding (e.g. from the FAQ) was that gravity exists, but we don't actually experience it in practice because nothing we know is massive enough. Does FET accept all relativity except the gravity part? That'd be quite something, especially since gravity has been measured in the lab.

Anyway...

They believe in mass! Mass is not gravity. But we wouldn't feel an increasing of mass. How should we? We are under constant acceleration. But we would get huge problems if we collide with something - even a particle! - that is not accelerated by the same rate as us.

Thanks, you just made me realise I don't have to resort to gravity anyway. Mass results in inertia. We would feel an increasing in mass because we'd find it harder to run around.

Wait a second, how does that theory work again?  Does the change in mass permit continued constant acceleration, or is the point of the changing mass to discourage any further acceleration, so as to not exceed the speed of light?  I'm not a physicist, so I wouldn't know.  It seems that the implication here is that the energy required for FE's "universal accelerator" or whatever to continue to accelerate the earth upward at 9.8 ms^-2 would necessarily diverge to infinity to counteract the huge increase in mass by the Lorentz transformation.

Yes, the UA has to get more and more powerful at an alarming rate. I think the increase in mass is simply because E=mc^2 and so the faster something goes, the more energy and hence the more mass it has. The result is that things get so massive as they approach the speed of light that they can't exceed it.

It doesn't have more mass, really; it has more inertia -- that is essentially what relativistic mass is. It is an easy way to account for the added inertia by changing a known variable. The actual mass doesn't change.

The Davis model accepts gravitation by mass without qualm. For myself, I have difficulty believing at least the value of G, though clearly if general relativity is correct, mass must exhibit some gravitation. 

Please explain. I thought that inertial and gravitational mass were always identical. In any case, if the Lorentz factor is only for inertia, the point is that our muscles must be exerting an incredible force in order to walk around or lift things. Not really a disproof since I see now that our inertia won't change really within our lifetimes, but it does add to the ludicrousness of it all.

Also, the value of G has been measured experimentally. Repeatedly. Using different methods. The only conflict is at high accuracy, the basic magnitude of the value is clear. And there's no reason to think that these scientists would be hiding something: this isn't directly related to space travel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant

Wouldn't we also be increasing in mass along with the Earth? I doubt we would notice anything.

Please explain. I thought that inertial and gravitational mass were always identical. In any case, if the Lorentz factor is only for inertia, the point is that our muscles must be exerting an incredible force in order to walk around or lift things. Not really a disproof since I see now that our inertia won't change really within our lifetimes, but it does add to the ludicrousness of it all.

Also, the value of G has been measured experimentally. Repeatedly. Using different methods. The only conflict is at high accuracy, the basic magnitude of the value is clear. And there's no reason to think that these scientists would be hiding something: this isn't directly related to space travel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant

We are in the same frame of reference or the objects "rest frame". Relativistic mass only applies when trying to add/subtract momentum from outside that objects frame of reference.