Exploring the Relationship between Energy and Inertia: A Scientific Inquiry

[jimgram]

There is a TOE that suggests that all "things" in the universe have a position. They (or it) simply exist, and there it is. There can't be a thing called 'motion' because that simply is a human invention to describe the relative position of two or more things. There obviously is no 'frame of reference' (another human invention), no 'absolute rest', and so forth. But for a thing to exist and be real, it resists any change in its position. Thus, we have the term 'inertia' that gives a quantity to that resistance. Then, we invented 'mass', because, on earth, things are more or less heavy. Mass = Inertia. When we begin describing two or more things in terms of their relationship to each other (I.E. 'motion'), then we invent the terms velocity, distance, and acceleration), and we re-define the term 'inertia' to make it a composite of 'mass' and velocity'.

If a 'thing' did not resist a change in its position then it would not be detectable nor could it influence any other thing. That would be the definition of 'non-existent'.

 

[Dogov]

An inertial property is "mechanical". In order to define an inertial property of matter further understanding of energy-mass relationships is needed. For example: When Einstein proposed that energy and matter were related by E=mc^2, he was defining energy related to the "momentum" of matter. The total "energy" associated with matter must be defined as "infinite". A mechanical property of inertia results from a "work" function of matter. In nature, there are no freeloaders. Anything that exists, works. Much discussion is needed to support this and can be found at www.geocities.com/dogov/inertia.htm .
Good Luck with your studies!
Gregg