>>Rest mass = mass:
>
>No, the rest mass is the mass, assuming that the object is at rest.
>
>For instance, an object at rest may have a mass of 1 kg. After accelerating it close to the speed of light, the mass might increase to 2 kg. For all practical purposes, the 2 kg. are, at that moment, the real mass. Energy has been invested to increase the speed of the object; the energy is now part of the moving object, as kinetic energy.

No, that's relativistic mass, which is obsolete in physics. Rest mass is mass, whether the object is at rest or not.

I cited John Baez's website. You should cite relevant and up to date sources if you disagree with Dr. Baez.

Here is what he said:

The old definition of mass, called "relativistic mass," assigns a mass to a particle proportional to its total energy E, and involved the speed of light, c, in the proportionality constant:

m = E / c2. (1)

This definition gives every object a velocity-dependent mass.

The modern definition assigns every object just one mass, an invariant quantity that does not depend on velocity. This is given by

m = E0 / c2, (2)

where E0 is the total energy of that object at rest.

The first definition is often used in popularizations, and in some elementary textbooks. It was once used by practicing physicists, but for the last few decades, the vast majority of physicists have instead used the second definition. Sometimes people will use the phrase "rest mass," or "invariant mass," but this is just for emphasis: mass is mass.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html


>You have to distinguish whether you mean the "rest mass" or the "moving mass".

Tell that to a working scientist. Rest/invarient mass = mass. Moving mass is relativistic mass, and obsolete.