[jerrygg38 (OP)]

What is the difference between inertial mass and gravitational mass?
   As a mass is accelerated photonic energy is added to it and its mass increases by Einstein’s formula
Mg = Mo/[1-(V/C)2]0.5
  As more and more energy is added to it we get a combination of gravitational energy and linear energy. Inertial mass is higher than the gravitational mass because it is a combination of mass and energy. What is the best fit approximation to inertial mass?
  If we add a Doppler component we get
Mi = Mo/ [1-(V/C)2]
   In the cyclotron we start out as gravitational mass increases then at a reasonably high speed the frontal mass and the rearward mass show great differences. Finally as we get near light speed C we get the inertial mass equation. This will bring us pretty close to light speed. Eventually at the highest speed the simple linear type equations fail and we get a Fourier series type of equation.
   Einstein’s formula works well but inertial mass is really a combination of spherical energy patterns and linear/orbital energy patterns. Therefore they are different. What do you think?

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

Corrections to equations which did not post correctly from word

Mg = Mo/[1-(V/C)^2]^0.5
Mi = Mo/[1-(v/C)^2]

[jeffreyH]

We find difficulties with the constancy of the speed of light and yet if unaffected by external forces all objects will maintain a constant speed. The vector direction doesn't change. So the natural state of objects where forces are absent is constant speed. So there should be no mystery. In the case of inertia this will increase in direct proportion to the increase in relativistic mass. Which is due to a change in the magnitude of the vector of the objects velocity. This does not necessarily apply to a change in vector direction alone.

[jerrygg38 (OP)]

We find difficulties with the constancy of the speed of light and yet if unaffected by external forces all objects will maintain a constant speed. The vector direction doesn't change. So the natural state of objects where forces are absent is constant speed. So there should be no mystery. In the case of inertia this will increase in direct proportion to the increase in relativistic mass. Which is due to a change in the magnitude of the vector of the objects velocity. This does not necessarily apply to a change in vector direction alone.

   What you say is always interesting but often your language is difficult to understand for my engineering mind. The equations I show are my best estimate for the graphs in my 50 year old physics book which I no longer have. So my inertial mass is really an equivalent mass which I believe my equations represent to a close degree.
   Who is the we who finds problems with the constant speed of light? As I see it light jumps from space to space. The jump speed of light is constant. As light jumps from one gravitational field line to another, there is a slight time delay. thus the average light speed is less than C. In low gravitational field areas of space the light speed with be the highest which I call the ideal light speed. Within a black hole the jump speed may be C but the density of the gravitational field lines means the light keeps stopping. Thus the light speed could be reduced to near zero.
   A moving object at speed v becomes like a photon whose light speed has been reduced to V. thus it will continue to move in a straight line at the constant speed V until it is operated upon by a force which turns it. However if it enters a higher density gravitational field which is balanced on all perpendicular directions, the object will slow even though no net force is applied. Thus the inertial law is only truly valid for linear space time.

[mad aetherist]

What is the difference between inertial mass and gravitational mass?
   As a mass is accelerated photonic energy is added to it and its mass increases by Einstein’s formula
Mg = Mo/[1-(V/C)2]0.5
  As more and more energy is added to it we get a combination of gravitational energy and linear energy. Inertial mass is higher than the gravitational mass because it is a combination of mass and energy. What is the best fit approximation to inertial mass?   If we add a Doppler component we get
Mi = Mo/ [1-(V/C)2]
   In the cyclotron we start out as gravitational mass increases then at a reasonably high speed the frontal mass and the rearward mass show great differences. Finally as we get near light speed C we get the inertial mass equation. This will bring us pretty close to light speed. Eventually at the highest speed the simple linear type equations fail and we get a Fourier series type of equation.    Einstein’s formula works well but inertial mass is really a combination of spherical energy patterns and linear/orbital energy patterns. Therefore they are different. What do you think?

From an aether perspective. Mass (say Earth) annihilates aether & aether flows in to replace the lost aether, the acceleration of the flow (as the streamlines converge in 3D) drags things (objects particles photons EM-radiation etc) towards Earth. Resisting the aether-drag of things requires a force, which on Earth we call weight (Newtons), which we call gravity, which we stick into m=F/a to give what we call gravitational mass (kg), which we cannot measure (when we measure wt we are actually measuring inertial force).

Inertia is the opposite. We drag a thing to accelerate it & we use a force (Newtons), which we call an inertial force, which we stick into m=F/a to give us what we call the inertial mass of the thing. Here all we have is a miniature set of streamlines flowing in to the thing (we are now in outer space well away from Earth), yet somehow these baby streamlines manage to give us a number for the inertial mass of the thing equal to the number we got for the gravitational mass when the thing was surrounded by Earth's strong streamlines.

The aetheric contexts were very different yet we got the same numbers exactly (to about 20 decimals). This shouldnt be a surprise, we measured inertial force in both cases, so inertia equals inertia, ie all we have shown is that the thing's inertial mass equals the thing's inertial mass. Someone give that scientist a Nobel. 

The above was macro. Micro is a little different, equivalence duznt exist, ie equivalence in some atomic & sub-atomic cases might not reach one lousy decimal (but that is another story).