# The Connection Between Space-Time, Mass-Energy, and Gravity-Inertia

#### Mike M.

Joined Oct 9, 2007
104
Here is a train of thought I had one day.............

Space, Time, Mass, Energy, and the Lorentz Factor

The velocity of light (c) is conserved for the 4-dimensional space-time manifold and is just converted back and forth between the 1-time and 3-space dimensions. Photons cannot go slower than (c) and cannot contain mass. Mass cannot reach the velocity (c) and doesn’t contain photons. They are 2 sides of the same coin.

We are always traveling through the 4-dimensional space-time manifold at the velocity of light. The faster we travel through 3-space, the slower we travel through 1-time (I will just call it time from now on) as calculated using the Lorentz Factor. The Lorentz Factor not only calculates time dilation based on relativistic velocity between masses, it also calculates energy based on relativistic speed between masses referencing the initial mass of the body under calculational scrutiny but not its direction, and finally spacial contraction along the longitudinal motion vector based on relativistic speed but independent of the object’s mass…….another 2 sides of a different coin.

Inertia and Gravity

Inertia is an energy-related property of matter that is ***intrinsic*** and increases as an object with mass travels faster through 3-space and thus the slower it travels through time.

Gravity is an energy-related property of matter that is ***extrinsic*** and increases the “warping” of the 4-dimensional space-time “fabric”. This, via the Lorentz Factor, is IDENTICAL to the statement above because it will cause mass to travel slower though time, via time dilation, and thus faster through 3-space……….another 2 sides of yet another different coin.

The Logical Discussion

When matter approaches the speed of light, its inertial energy approaches infinity and therefore its mass also approaches infinity as correlated in E=mc^2.

If the mass velocity approaches infinity, the gravitational field will approach infinity. As the gravitational field approaches infinity, space-time is (at the present) believed to be like a warped fabric. This warping follows the Lorentz Factor (as descibed above).

The more inertia a moving body has, the more mass-energy that body has, and the more gravity it will have.

The more gravity a stationary body has, the more mass-energy that body has, and the more it acts like an inertial moving body.

Inertia and Gravity are like identical twins that grew up with different personalities!!!!!

One appears intrinsic and the other, extrinsic.

They act like the wave-particle duality where a particle can act like a wave (dual-slit experiment) or a wave, especially a harmonic oscillating standing wave, can act like a particle (ultra-high frequency microscopic standing waves ARE what constitute the matter particles we observe today).

THEY BOTH AFFECT SPACE-TIME VIA MASS-ENERGY IDENTICALLY BY MEANS OF THE LORENTZ FACTOR!!!!!

The Hypothesis

Gravity IS the extension of the centripetal force field that holds together subatomic particles with mass that have spin. A mass with spin has an angular momentum and thus an inertial value having a quantitative energy value. That energy value IS its mass and that mass radiates a inertial-gravitational force. Inertial remains an internal component while gravity remains an external component. Both components are again 2 sides of the same coin.

Gravity-inertia relates through space-time and mass-energy via the Lorentz Factor.

Space-time relates through mass-energy and gravity-inertia via t^2=x^2 + y^2 + z^2.

Mass-energy relates through gravity-inertia and space-time via E=mc^2

All 3 dual relationships relating through the other 2 dual relationships share common bonds via The Lorentz Factor, E=mc^2, and t^2=x^2 + y^2 + z^2 where:
v=velocity
c=speed of light in a vacuum
E=energy
m=mass
t=time
x, y, and z= the 3 spacial dimensions
Lorentz Factor= 1/sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2))

CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM WELCOMED #### Mike M.

Joined Oct 9, 2007
104
18 days and NOBODY has attempted to point out a flaw somewhere? That is definitely a record!!!

#### FredM

Joined Dec 27, 2005
124
Hi Mike,
Is there any thought experiment one can apply in an attempt to test your hypothesis? I would comment.. But I don't understand 90% of what you are saying! .. This could be (probably is) because it is all completely beyond the capacity of my tiny brain.. Or it may be because you are a ... a Time Lord???
which may be why it is all completely beyond the capacity of my tiny brain..

#### Mike M.

Joined Oct 9, 2007
104
Hi Mike,
Is there any thought experiment one can apply in an attempt to test your hypothesis? I would comment.. But I don't understand 90% of what you are saying! .. This could be (probably is) because it is all completely beyond the capacity of my tiny brain.. Or it may be because you are a ... a Time Lord???
which may be why it is all completely beyond the capacity of my tiny brain..
I'm not really sure a thought experiment would suffice since the hypothesis is already based on a thought experiment. I was actually wondering if anyone knew anything concrete that has been proven that would not allow the union of inertia with gravity in the framework that I hypothesized. Here are some links to help out:

Lorentz factor
Time dilation
Four-vector
List of relativistic equations, including length contraction

#### FredM

Joined Dec 27, 2005
124
Hi Mike,
The truth becomes clear when I look into the links you provided.. Anything much more complex (particularly when maths is involved) than Bill Bryson's "a short history of nearly everything" goes over my head.. I can grasp concepts and invent hypotheses provided I can 'visualise' the processes without requiring too much in the way of mathematical ability - when, however, maths is the primary discourse, I am left stranded.
I think maths is a language - and I am an outsider, with just enough ability to scrape bye.. but this stuff is like hearing a Shakespere play in english when one is fluent only in Chinese.. At best, only a few sentances would be understood. I envy you..
Sure - The equations you present are simple enough in their own right.. But it is the underlying maths uppon which this is all based which I need to get a handle on, in order to visualise what you are presenting.. Believe me, it is not because I dont try..

I wonder if a reason you have had so few replies to this thread is because others suffer (probably to a lesser extent) the same incomprehension over what you have presented, that I do.

I will stick with thinking about zapping springs for now!

Regards,
Fred