If gravity is space time curvature and general relativity supplants Newton"s theory ,than calculation of revoling masses in space would be more accuratly determined by General Relativity?
132499
Yes, it would be more accurate, but the calculations are much harder. Whether it is worth it depends on what you have to do with the information. One thing that happens is 'frame dragging', where a rotating mass drags along space and time with the rotation. We now have a probe in orbit around the earth to measure exactly this phenomenon.
402073
a speeding object slows down in time due to gravity not speed. that's why steins general theory was also trying to tell us. that gravity slows time.
417643
No, physicists have always known that gravity is the one "force" that we really still don't understand. Now it is true that at macroscopic or large distance scales, we understand gravity very well through Einstein's General Relativity Theory. But at the quantum level, the scale of sub-atomic particles, we have no idea how gravity works there. And the most interesting thing is that when we try to probe and understand gravity at the quantum level, we find that we have to abandon all our currently understanding of space and time, as well as the notion of 3-dimensional space.
359829
This paper helps a lot:\nIn the simple Newtonian model, gravity propagates instantaneously: the force exerted by a massive object points directly toward that object's present position.  For example, even though the Sun is 500 light seconds from the Earth, Newtonian gravity describes a force on Earth directed towards the Sun's position "now," not its position 500 seconds ago.  Putting a "light travel delay" (technically called "retardation") into Newtonian gravity would make orbits unstable, leading to predictions that clearly contradict Solar System observations.\n\nIn general relativity, on the other hand, gravity propagates at the speed of light; that is, the motion of a massive object creates a distortion in the curvature of spacetime that moves outward at light speed.  This might seem to contradict the Solar System observations described above, but remember that general relativity is conceptually very different from Newtonian gravity, so a direct comparison is not so simple.  Strictly speaking, gravity is not a "force" in general relativity, and a description in terms of speed and direction can be tricky.  For weak fields, though, one can describe the theory in a sort of Newtonian language.  In that case, one finds that the "force" in GR is not quite central--it does not point directly towards the source of the gravitational field--and that it depends on velocity as well as position.  The net result is that the effect of propagation delay is almost exactly cancelled, and general relativity very nearly reproduces the Newtonian result.\n{end quote}\nhttp://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html
506960
No, because gravity still has not been unified with the other three fundamental forces of electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force (which has been unified with electromagnetism) and the strong nuclear force.\n\nHowever, relativity theory was a great leap forward in understanding how gravity works. It would have been figured out eventually without Einstein, but possibly not for another hundred years, that is, right about now. \n\nIt's fascinating to have this exotic knowledge about nature, but sometimes I wonder if it's worth the price of also having to live with the existence of nuclear weapons.
16127
I'd love to know what your answer is. Its actually something physics seems very confused about.\n\nAccording to GR, its masses that cause the curvature of space. Gravity isn't a force, its just masses following the path of least resistence - straight lines in curved space time.\n\nThe problem is they then try to introduce gravitons to carry what isn't really a force. Very confusing.\n\nIf we assume Einstein is right, that gravity isn't a force, but masses following curves, the real question becomes - where does mass come from?\n\nMy guess - quantum entanglement create at time zero that keeps everything in the universe interacting. I don't like the higgs bogusons theory, since that introduces yet another force carries in the terms of a, erm, massive particle that gets mass from, erm, itself...
421191
This is a tricky question, and I think the answers are mostly good even though they disagree.  Campbelp2 is right in that the force transmitted in magnetic field lines is not conveyed by a distortion of space-time akin to gravity.  AE and others worked quite a while to come up with this trick and unify the EM force with gravity (by building extra dimensions into the framework of GR), but eventually gave up.\n\nOn the other hand,  as Jose and Steve say, the magnetic field has an associated stress/energy with it which contributes to the gravitational force.  So in this sense, the magnetic field does contribute to the space-time curvature.  \n\nBut that is not how the magnetic force is expressed, so I would say the bottom-line answer is no.  The EM force is transmitted via photons which are the quanta of the EM field.  Gravity is believed to be conveyed by gravitons.  Different force carriers.
663841
Well, actually, your theory is very similar to that of the Theory of Relativity, or something. If you slowed down time by moving faster, the objects would literally gain weight. (Fat people, plz do not go on space missions...) And once you were travelling at the speed of light, you would have infinite weight. (But of course, your MASS would still be the same. So fat people should let out a big breath.) I'm not sure exactly which theory this is...
590376
General Theory of Relativity:\n\nA mass in space creates an indention much like a bowling ball on a trampoline.  Its this indention that is the cause of gravity.  If a marble were to roll across the trampoline into that indention, it would take a curve path and eventually fall into the bowling ball.  This is what happens when you fall to the Earth: your body is in a sense sliding on the curvature of space-time.
427458
no. \nthe stress-energy tensor tells us how the energy is spread, and moves, across spacetime.\nthe gravitational constant is a parameter that determines to what degree 1 kg of mass (for instance) will "warp" the spacetime. \n\nso, you can't derive it from the einstein equation.\n\nin fact, relativists usually set the gravitational constant to = 1, so that they don't have to deal with it. although it's essential when you're trying to determine exactly what your physical predictions will be, it's not really an active element of einstein's theory. it just kind of sits there.
1917
Einsteins theories and the related mathematical equations seemed to have held up to experimental data for both special and general relativity. In that way, it seems he was at least right in the way he described reality. It may turn out that there is a theory out there somewhere that is even righter.\n\nWhat he may not have been right about is calling the Cosmological Constant his "biggest blunder". It now seems that it is in fact needed in GR.\n\nThere is a theory circulating the internet currently that Einsteins Special Relativity may have mathematical inconsistencies, but I have not verified this.
356702
This is too freaky. A problem that goes out of its way to EMPHASIZE weight not mass would give the weight in Newtons. Gram is a unit of mass, not weight.
220654
A.) In his General Theory of Relativity, Einstein developed a mathematical description of gravity—one that links space to time and mass to energy in a fundamentally geometrical fashion. In other words, mass(-energy) shapes space(-time) instead of acting like a “force” in the traditional Newtonian sense.  (Thus, in Newton’s description of gravity, one would say that all bodies exert an attractive gravitational force on one another. In Einstein’s conception, one would say that all bodies change the underlying geometry of space-time in a way that causes them to be attracted to one another.)  Thus, our best understanding of gravity is that it’s a fundamental property of space-time to be “warped” by the presence of mass(-energy). So gravity is simply a property of space-time, and most likely, it came into existence at the same time.  (One caveat: curvature or warping really only provides an analogy to what the equations tell us. If you want to imagine the effects of an object on its surrounding space-time, then you can think of it as changing the shape of space-time in its vicinity. The distortion is real—we can measure its effects—but the images that are often presented of flexible sheets of space-time with bowling balls or marbles rolling around on them, for example, simply present analogous situations.)\n\nB.)  Spinning is a common attribute of objects in the Universe because the way things form virtually always leaves them in rotation, and once things get started rotating, it’s hard to make them stop.  It’s not intuitively obvious, but if you take, say, a cloud of gas and dust collapsing to form a planetary system, then averaging all the random motions of the particles will leave you with some tiny element of rotation.  As the collapse takes place, any rotation will be magnified, so you end up with planets revolving around their parent stars, and planets themselves rotating on their axes.\n\nC.)  It’s doubtful that we’ll ever acquire much in the way of interstellar real estate, simply because the distances involved are so great.  Our best hope is to carry on radio communication with them, but even at the speed of light, it would take decades or centuries for radio signals to travel between us and the stars currently within our range of communication.\n\n\nRyan Wyatt\nRose Center for Earth & Space\nNew York, New York
284448
The basic idea behind “folding” space or time comes from Einstein’s General theory of Relativity, so if you’ll bear with me for a moment…  What he proposed was a totally new, geometrical description of space and time that led to a different description of gravity—one that linked space to time and mass to energy in a fundamentally geometrical fashion. In other words, mass(-energy) shapes space(-time) instead of acting like a “force” in the traditional Newtownian sense. This alteration in the fundamental geometry of space-time is often described as the “curvature” or “bending” of space. \n\n(Thus, in Newton’s description of gravity, one would say that all bodies exert an attractive gravitational force on one another; “space” is just the place where it happens. In Einstein’s conception, one would say that all bodies change the underlying geometry of space—and time, too—in a way that causes them to be attracted to one another.)\n\nSo we often talk of space-time being “warped” or “curved” (honestly, “folded” sounds a little extreme) by the presence of mass(-energy). The only we see space-time deformed in the Universe around us is by the presence of a lot of matter—light being bent around the Sun, clocks being affected by Earth’s gravity, that sort of thing.  To do something similar (like the “Smallville” example) would require very large quantities of mass or energy.\n\nThe caveat is that curvature or bending really only provides an analogy to what the equations tell us. If you want to imagine the effects of an object on its surrouning space(-time), then you can think of it as changing the shape of space(-time) in its vicinity. The distortion is real—we can measure its effects—but the images that are often presented (of flexible sheets of space-time with bowling balls or marbles rolling around on them) simply present analogous situations.\n\nThe issue with “folding” is that it suggests something like a crease in space-time, and that’s problematic in the sense that gentle “curves” or “warps” are mathematically simple to describe, but adding anything like a hard edge becomes tricky.  Plus, to make the transition from one part of space-time to another requires bringing those two points in contact—a challenge that makes “folding” look simple!\n\nJ. Richard Gott wrote a book, “Time Travel in Einstein’s Universe: The Physical Possibilities of Travel Through Time” that addresses the “reality” of time travel from the perspective of contemporary physics:\nhttp://www.powells.com/partner/30700/biblio/0395955637\n\n\nRyan Wyatt\nRose Center for Earth & Space\nNew York, New York
370927
d is the most correct answer, yes.  \n\nHowever keep in mind that despite g being the "gravitational constant", acceleration caused by gravity DOES change depending on the the distance from the earth.  When we're talking about the difference of a table, there is practically no difference, however keep in mind that it does change.
4780
Its because physics seems to be really confused about this issue. We're all taught that Gravity is a force of attraction between masses. However, when you look at General Relativity you find that it is not. It is the warping of space-time by mass that causes masses to follow curved geometries that make it look like there is a force acting between them. Where it is really confusing is that then they say that Gravity is transmitted through gravitons - which seems counter intuitive to the whole GR scene. I think that's why Physics is still struggling to find a GUT (Grand Unified Theory) - they are trying to shoe-horn gravity into a place it doesn't belong.
267455
Why is it everyone is mixed up about antimatter as if it's something special. Mass is mass whether it's matter or antimatter. The effect on spacetime curvature is the same for both.\nAnyway back to your question... Well it's also a function of the mass. Inverse space time is just the logical extension to a 4D system of the idea of spatial frequencies in 3D or for that matter of frequency in 1D. You obtain the inverse from the regular by performing a fourier transform. Inverse spacetime is the dual/harmonic domain representation of spacetime. The harmonic domain representation is a more natural way of analysing oscillatory phenomena like the orbits of stars and planets, just as the frequency domain is the more natural way of analysing audio signals and the like.