When a small sub-atomic particle is accelerated in the Large Hadron Collider (it gains momentum energy which becomes ‘conserved momentum' stored in its momentum field) it finally achieves the Relative Mass equivalent to that of a Greyhound bus. This increase in Relative Mass causes an increase in inertia similar to what you would expect from an increase in Absolute Mass (an object becomes ‘heavier' and therefore is harder and harder to push, as either its Relative Mass or Absolute Mass increases). It is for this reason that each new collider needs a great increase in power to push that Greyhound bus even a tiny bit closer to the speed of light, for it is much harder to push a Greyhound bus than it is to push a tiny sub-atomic particle.

From these observations it would appear that ‘E=MC2' implies that there is no real difference between an objects ‘Relative Mass' and its ‘Absolute Mass', given the equivalence of matter and energy, and that it must be true that ‘matter' is just one way of organizing energy in space (in this case by creating three dimensional space so that finite energy can be quantized and thus exist suspended in an infinite void). Now given that it is true that there is no difference between Relative or Absolute Mass as far as it concerns inertia, is there any good reason to assume that Relative Mass does not affect the strength of the gravitational field of an object? Does an object become a powerful gravitational attraction source if it has enormous Relative Mass (and therefore a great velocity)?

One way to determine whether or not Relative Mass is equivalent to Absolute Mass in determining gravitation would be to examine close to forty years of moon orbital data which has been gathered ever since the time of the first Apollo Missions to the moon. The astronauts left mirrors on the surface of the moon and since then extremely precise laser beams have been bouncing off mirrors on the moon, giving us precise data on the moons orbit around the earth. What the data has revealed is that the moon is gaining momentum at the expense of the earth by means of the tidal interaction with the oceans such that the moon is increasing its orbital altitude at a rate of 3 centimeters per year.

What this means is that over the last forty years the moon is now about 120 centimeters further away from the earth (a little over three feet). Now the moon is farther away and so we would assume that the moon's interaction with the world's oceans is now just a little weaker given the increase in distance. At the same time the relative mass of the moon has been increasing as the moon's momentum has been increasing due to the energy the moon is gaining in this transaction. If it was true that relative mass does not contribute to gravitation then it must also be true that the moon is receding by a smaller amount every year, for the moon is gaining less momentum the further out it moves. However if the relative mass of the moon is contributing to the moon's gravitational force, then it must be true that the moon is receding at a constant rate, for the contribution of the relative mass to the moon's gravitational force compensates for the increasing distance of the moon from the earth..

It is said that these laser measurements of the moon are incredibly precise, and so therefore if the relative mass of the moon is contributing to gravitation (and behaving just like absolute mass would behave) then the results would be the same each year (for example, 3.12345, 3.12345, etc). However if the relative mass plays no role in gravitation (and is therefore not equivalent to absolute mass for this purpose) then we would expect to see a gradual decline in momentum transfer to the moon due to the increasing distance of the moon from the earth which resulted in lower and lower gravitational impacts, and this change would be reflected in the decreasing distance gained by the moon year upon year (example : 3.12345, 3.12333, 3.12322 and so on).