If gravitation involves the adjustment of a particles time dilation to that of a less rapid time dilation can this accurately be assessed as non-inertial?

Would gravitation be more accurately assessed as involving either negative inertia or negation of inertia?

Postpocelipse said:

If gravitation involves the adjustment of a particles time dilation to that of a less rapid time dilation can this accurately be assessed as non-inertial?

Would gravitation be more accurately assessed as involving either negative inertia or negation of inertia?

I think you’re starting to get weirder than me. The concept of “negative inertia” appeared in a science fiction book first published in 1937, and “negation of inertia” even earlier in 1934, so it cannot be said to be a new idea.

The whole of general relativity is based on the equivalence of gravitational mass and inertial mass. Setting the two equal is what allows general relativity to be expressed in a geometrical way. Time dilation on the other hand begins with special relativity. One thing I find rather startling, but I’ve seen proof, is that the time dilation in a gravitational field (such as for a particle at rest above the Earth) can be calculated directly from Special Relativity, without any need for General Relativity.

For feedback purposes, I recently understood that my confusion in this area centres on the nature of kinetic energy, which I can only assume at this junction is presented in the time dilation of a particle. Is it simply that I have not found a direct reference illustrating the link between kinetic energy and time dilation or is there some reason these remain seperated by accepted theory?