[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

Here is my hypothesis :
Let's say:
f=ma , and F=GMm/rē
"The hypothesis is fundamental for Both these Newtonian equations and special relativity equations"
f in the first equation is the inertial force of object m and F in the second equation is the gravity force on m.
If m changes in its mass then both inertial force and force of gravity will change with the same rate.

There must be a relation between mass m being affected by gravity and mass m being affected by inertial force.

If mass is connected somehow to space-time and this connection enable mass to curve space-time this connection will also enable space-time to affect motion resulting in inertia .Space-time curvature makes mass to move with acceleration and space-time opposes mass motion with inertia acceleration.

Space-time straight geometry lines will resist motion of mass m with a force F=ma in a comparison of straight lines will be curved by a mass m.

If the mass is big both curvature and the effect on moving mass will be big if this effect is big then inertia will be big.

A mass at constant speed has no increment in its mass "special relativity "in this case there will not be my moving object effect, because my effect depends on mass"just like curvature depends on mass".

For some math the difference between my effect is highly large in numbers than curvature"gravity " force of inertia is higher than force of gravity both are for the same mass

[Bored chemist]

Can you propose an experiment to test this idea?

[Kryptid]

A mass at constant speed has no increment in its mass "special relativity "

Are you saying that relativistic mass does not exist?

[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

Can you propose an experiment to test this idea?

I doesn't have one yet.

[Bored chemist]

Can you propose an experiment to test this idea?

I doesn't have one yet.

Then it is not science.

[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

Can you propose an experiment to test this idea?

I don't have one yet.

Then it is not science.

It is a hypothesis

[Bored chemist]

If there is no way that you can do an experiment to test it, then it is not a scientific hypothesis.

[Halc]

Here is my hypothesis :
Let's say:
f=ma , and F=GMm/rē
"The hypothesis is fundamental for Both these Newtonian equations and special relativity equations"

How are those hypotheses fundamental to SR?  You put this in quotes like something official says this.
The premises of SR do not involve either of these equations.  They are both Newtonian equations and the latter is only an approximation under relativity theory. SR makes no mention at all of gravitational mass.

f in the first equation is the inertial force of object m and F in the second equation is the gravity force on m.

I'd have said that m is inertial mass in the first equation. Force is force, and there's no inertial version of it. Relativity theory dispenses with gravitational force completely, but inertial and gravitational mass both remain behind.

If m changes in its mass then both inertial force and force of gravity will change with the same rate.

Is this the part that is your new theory?  Because relativity theory says no such thing. Gravitational effects are dependent on the stress energy tensor, which are invariant under frame transformations. Short story is that a fast moving object exerts no more gravity than the same object in the frame in which it is stationary. You can't for instance create a black hole just by raising the relativistic mass of something to the point where the object is within some abstract Schwarzschild radius.

Inertial mass (relativistic mass) definitely goes up with speed.  A force on an object with proper mass m will accelerate that object much more if the object is at rest than the same force applied to the same object moving very fast.

[Kryptid]

In other words a  mass at constant speed has no change in its relativistic mass.

Then we know that your idea is wrong.

[puppypower]

Say gravity curves space-time via GR. GR will add an orbit type affect. This orbit then adds a secondary force vector that opposes the newtonian radial force of gravity. The higher the curvature, the tighter the orbit, and the higher the opposing force, due to the centrifugal force within any curved orbit. This opposing force vector keeps things in orbit, by opposing gravity. GR helps to oppose gravity. Something is missing.

If we do an energy balance, as things get closer and gravity lowers potential, energy is released due to energy conservation. There should be an exothermic output as mass lowers gravitational potential. In this case, the opposing centrifugal force vector, set up by the curvature of space due to GR, is part of an action/reaction affect, with that secondary opposing vector connected to the energy release. That energy, due to gravity, seeks to reverse or oppose gravity. GR is not helping the cause as much as previously assumed.

If you look at GR, it predicts the center of gravity will contract space-time the most. In terms of material observations, distances do get smaller due to the pressure but the material and energy frequencies, which is a measure of time, speed up instead of slow down as predicted by GR.  GR leave out  this extra opposing time vector. GR is not sufficient to characterize any of the phase affects of matter. Newtonian does much better job at this level. This is because this is time affect is about mass and matter phases, and not space-time.

Gravitational force is an acceleration which has the units d/t/t. It is two parts time and one part distance. Space-time is one part time and one part distance. The concept of space-time, leaves out the secondary time vector of gravitational acceleration. This has an impact on matter phases and the associated energy balances of gravity.

 GR has been over sold in terms of characterizing all observed aspects of gravity. This may be why some experiments will not work out, without additional assumptions, such as the secondary time and forces vectors, and the energy balance.   

[Bored chemist]

Something is missing.

Science is missing from your post.

[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

So, why moon doesn't leave its orbit when hit by a meteorite , it is a matter of it moving even slight distance from earth?
The fact is the moon will move slightly and return back.
Imaging a ball rotating inside a cone with specific speed , This ball can be pushed small distance and return back again keeping its speed and orbit this is a matter of connection and friction force
So the cone scenario must be for moon as well , space-time represent the cone and ball represent the moon.In case of the cone there must be friction force between the ball and the cone in case of the moon there is " my force I discovered " between the moon and space-time

[Bored chemist]

.In case of the cone there must be friction force between the ball and the cone

It would still work with a frictionless cone.

[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

.In case of the cone there must be friction force between the ball and the cone

It would still work with a frictionless cone.

If cone is friction-less then no contact between the cone and the ball which is equivalent to a rotating ball without put on a cone  In this case circular motion equations apply by which small push will change ball path

[Bored chemist]

.In case of the cone there must be friction force between the ball and the cone

It would still work with a frictionless cone.

If cone is friction-less then no contact between the cone and the ball which is equivalent to a rotating ball without put on a cone  In this case circular motion equations apply by which small push will change ball path

No
It's not the friction force that keeps a ball in a cone "in orbit", it's the normal reaction force.
Friction goes the wrong way.

[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

Here is my hypothesis :
Let's say:
f=ma , and F=GMm/rē
"The hypothesis is fundamental for Both these Newtonian equations and special relativity equations"

How are
those hypotheses fundamental to SR? 
You put this in quotes like something official says this.
The premises of SR do not involve either of these equations.  They are both Newtonian equations and the latter is only an approximation under relativity theory. SR makes no mention at all of gravitational mass.

You understood it wrong.It is my hypothesis that is fundamental for both these estimate Newtonian equation and RS ones

f in the first equation is the inertial force of object m and F in the second equation is the gravity force on m.

I'd have said that m is inertial mass in the first equation. Force is force, and there's no inertial version of it.

Gravity force is the interaction between two masses inertial force is a push or a pull

I will rewrite it to be more clear
For these estimate Newtonian equations " f=ma and F=GMm/rē" when mass m changes then both f and F changes , and this also works for SR complicated equations.
And if m changes both inertial force f and gravity force F change implying a relation between inertial force and gravity force .The relation is gravity force is space-time curvature and inertia force is space-time resistance  .Rest mass is connected somehow with space-time and curve it , mass still connected to space-time while it is moving.If rest mass is affected by curvature and that results in gravity acceleration then moving mass  is also affected by space-time and that results in inertial acceleration.

[Bored chemist]

Gravity force is the interaction between two masses inertial force is a push or a pull

The interaction between two masses is a pull.
If you drop something it is pulled to the Earth.

[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

Gravity force is the interaction between two masses inertial force is a push or a pull

The interaction between two masses is a pull.
If you drop something it is pulled to the Earth.

This only a Newtonian thought .In General Relativity gravity force is neither a push nor a pull

[talanum1]

Your hypothesis is equivalent to Newton's. You can't claim it as your own.

[Bored chemist]

This only a Newtonian thought .In General Relativity gravity force is neither a push nor a pull

Gravity is a force caused by the gravitational field.
Most pushes and pulls- like me pressing the keys on this keyboard- are caused by an electrostatic field.
There is no real difference.