And just what do you mean by "mass", "space" and "energy"?
Your question is a grammatically correct sentence, but it is totally ambiguous and confusing. It sounds reasonable but it contains no meaning.

E = mc^2, and E = 1/2 mv^2 both contain mass (m) and space terms (v and c are in velocity units of space/time). But these are precise mathematical definitons with long histories of experimental verification and practical application which are public and which anyone can investigate or duplicate. In fact matter, energy, space and time are all intimately related, by definition, we made them that way for our computational convenience, it makes no sense to talk about one without the others. Mass is defined as resistance to accelleration, which also involves space and time units. You did not discover this, my friend, it's very old news.

I apologize for not making clear the distinction between Umberto Eco's novel and the mechanical device of the same name. The novel has a long dialogue consisting of men discussing the interpretations of certain historical events according to underlying sinister hidden causes (what we might call today "conspiracy theories". Theory after theory is brought up, each exquisitely justified with precise logic and impeccable and erudite historical documentation, only for each to be demolished by the next, totally contradictory explanation. Eco's erudition is phenomenal, and his anaysis is devastating.

The moral: you cannot simply read and study and think and make sense of anything in the physical world. The only way to learn about hard nature (unlike the soft sciences of politics, psychology or economics, which deal in shadows) is to conduct experiments, make measurements, and integrate these observations into theoretical structures which suggest means for their own verification or refutation.

I know we come down on you pretty hard here on these methodological
issues J., but this is at the core of what science is all about; it is both the great power and constraint of scientific investigation. And if we appear to come across a little short with you it is because you simply can't seem to grasp what we are saying to you. Your responses always appear to be precomposed, as if you can't wait for us to finish talking so you can say what you had planned on saying anyway, regardless of our attempts to persuade you.

In short, you can't make sense of things just by thinking and talking about them. For the human mind, there is no a priori way to distinguish been a fact and a fantasy without some kind of physical measurement or observation conducted outside the mind. In the areas where these methods can be applied, science has been phenomenally successful at coming up with verifiable and predictable explanations of natural phenomena.

The rest of our knowledge and philosophy has progressed little.