-3
$\begingroup$

First, I apologize if this question is too long or too incoherent to respond to on your website. Second, I am no mathematician or physicist, only a thinker. Third, what follows is all part of my question, I am unable to summarize any farther.

Lately I have been trying to puzzle out why?! If inertia is a property of the matter form of mass-energy, and it is a property that allows for the transfer of energy, then why doesn't the energy dissapate in a vacuum, as does applied radiant/free energy? The only conclusion I can come to is that inertia, like gravity, is a result of a mass-energy/space-time interaction.


From there I began to question our entire concept of movement. If inertia and gravity are both mass-energy/space-time interactions, and gravity is matter's action upon space-time, then maybe inertia is space-time's action upon matter. This is where I feel I have lost even myself. I began to suspect that we do not live in a 3 dimensional universe with a 4th dimension, time. We live in a 2 dimensional universe in which the only reality is time, but not in our traditional sense. A single dimension was acted upon by what we perceive as time (2nd dimension). It, time, simultaneously expanded, and began "pulling" , in its entirety, this 2 dimensional creation. I find that in reality there is no motion possible. The "pressure" which causes what we perceive as the forward flow of time is also what causes what we perceive as "motion". Space-time, mass-energy, our perception of time and movement all spring from the interaction of these 2 dimensions. In my opinion this also explains the expansion of the universe and may also shine a light on the dark matter/ dark energy problem. If $E = mc^2$ then the moment of the creation of the universe is still "present/happening" at the edge of our expanding universe. Therefore the "place/moment" of that creation would contain a large enough "energy" in a small enough "space" to create a large matter like reaction on space-time. In other words the energy pushing on the edge of the universe has both high inertia and high gravity.

I don't know if any of this is mathematically provable/disprovable but I would appreciate some sort of response.

Thanks for your time. :)

$\endgroup$

closed as off-topic by David Hammen, CuriousOne, user36790, knzhou, John Rennie Jun 12 '16 at 6:13

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see Is non mainstream physics appropriate for this site?." – David Hammen, CuriousOne, Community, knzhou, John Rennie
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • $\begingroup$ People commonly mistake time to be a 4th dimension, but it cannot be because it exists in all dimensions, so it has to exist independently of them. $\endgroup$ – M Barbosa Jun 12 '16 at 1:41
2
$\begingroup$

"If inertia is a property of the matter form of mass-energy, and it is a property that allows for the transfer of energy, then why doesn't the energy dissipated in a vacuum, as does applied radiant/free energy"

The problem with your logic is that is flawed. It is equivalent to "some fruits are apples; oranges are fruits: why do not oranges taste like apples?"

Other than that, it is also true that there is something called the holographic principle, which agrees with your idea that there is a description of physics in which we live in two spatial dimensions.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Perhaps you do not fully understand the underlying reality of the Apple/ orange $\endgroup$ – Daniel Jun 12 '16 at 4:31

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.