Is Inertia the Key to Understanding the Nature of Gravity?

[Mikado]

I have a theory or more of an idea. I have absolutly no proof of that, but I never came upon something that is inconsistent with it. here it is:

Solving the famous E=mc² to c give c=sqrt(E/M) which is not new to anyone. As we know that light is a wave, naturaly a wave move in a transmitter. I won't take the ether concept out again... yet. I just happen to know that the speed of a wave is give by : v=sqrt(factor of restitution/factor of inertia). I found it very like the expression of c above.

I thought of considering that M was the total mass of the Univers and E to be the total Energie of the Univers. If energie is mass (like the usual meaning given to E=mc²) then if some mass is transformed in energie then c changes(?).

Also, if the speed of light is constant in whatever reference then the environment of transmition along the light ray must be of constant properties everywhere.

The answer I give to those problems can be described by this analogy:

Imagine an enormous sheet (2 dimensional instead of the usual 3 space dimensions) where you put a set of masses randomly distributed. The sheet will have a tension all along its surface that is proportional to the weight on it. Eventually, all the masses will join in the middle because the height gap between the weight will force them to implode on each other (sound familiar).

Now to give an explanation to this in reality there is one problem, this only works if a force (in the analogy: gravity) is applied to each mass. I came to some forum where someone was ask if the gravity could be the result of inertia trought time. What a brilliant idea! if a mass has a certain inertia to travel trought space as we well know could it also have an inertia to travel trought time as well. And the force I was looking for could be an inertial force due to time travel of masses. In other words, the ether which travels in time has to drag along all the mass of the Univers, the heavier or slower to drag then the other, hence have more gravity because they stretch the ether around them. Didn't Einstein say that time slows down near a huge mass, well of course since the mass is not catching up with the rest of the Univers in its travel throught time.

All this can only be true if the ether is accelerating through time. But acceleration is a change in speed not in momentum or energie. We know the Univers is continually emitting energie with the stars, if it loses energie it loses mass, and to keep its momentum it accelerates. Or maybe external forces are applied to the Univers but I didn't have time to take a walk outside the Univers to see if a goblin is dragging the Univers.;)

All I want is some comments on this to know if its a revolution in physics or total bull****, if some parts are interresting and some absolutely false. Any comment would be appreciated.

 

[russ_watters]

You can't arbitrarily decide to make C a variable in the equation. It is a constant. Indeed, by plugging in the mass of the universe, you can calculate the energy in the universe.

 

[Mikado]

I never said C was a variable, I just raised it as a remark or a question. Anyway, the theory is not related to that 'postulat' at all so it's a totally unrelated but interesting question (Is C a constant? it should be since the theory of relativity is based on it, but in my point of view, the equation E=mc² with the classical knowledge of relativity and of the Univers contradicts it-self)

On the other hand, my psedo-theory accually gives an explanation to make C a constant after all. But in that case, E=mc² is an approximation of reality and works for small objects like a planet or a galaxie but not for the Univers as I conceive it. As I said, this is a total other debate... and I have trouble accepting the ideas I just talked about.