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?
201840
what do you mean?\nhow to calculate their speed or wat?
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.
430419
I'm not sure what you are asking, but if gravity is the action acting on the hands of the clock, the increased speed of x% should be the same as the slowed speed of y%.
3392
ok, well the formula you need is:\n\nFg=Gm1m2/r^2\n\nwhere Fg is the force of gravitation, G is the universal gravitational constant(just a constant, you dont have to worry about it) m1 and m2 are the masses of the 2 objects, and r^2 is the distance between the two objects squared.\n(a) ok, so if r increases by 10 times, since r is squared, the denominator would actually increase by 100 times.  Since the denominator increases by 100 times, and the numerator stays the same, you're basically multiplying it by (1/100) so that means that you have to do the same thing to both sides, so you just multiply Fg by 1/100 so thats 500/100 so the answer is 5 newtons.  This makes sense because the farther objects get from each other, the less each other's gravity will affect them.\n\n(b) ok, now one of the m's, lets say m1 doubles.  The rest stays the same again, and this time its in the numerator, so you're just multipying the whole thing by 2, so the new force would be 1000 newtons.  This makes sense, because something with more mass would experience more gravitational force, for example, a person with more mass experiences a greater gravitational force with the earth, and therefore weighs more.
322816
These are given by Einstein field equations and are unfortunately not so simple as Newton´s equation.\n\nTake a look here:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_equations\n\nor here if you want less math:\nhttp://www.black-holes.org/relativity1.html
412015
we have F= G*M*m/r^2  and F=weight\n\nwhen M=M and r= r/2 then F=G*M*m/ (r/2)^2\n\ntherefore F(new)= 4*F and hence new weight is 4 times.\n\nthis is due to change in the value of g(acceleration due to gravity)\n\nsince F=mg= G*M*m/r^2   and hence only g is effected\n\nand hence weight also changes mass remainig same.
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.
1535
General Relativity, which is the modern theory of gravity has some specific ways in which space can be warped: mass, of course, and also is a gravity wave goes by, and I suppose there could be some relic weirdness left over from the Big Bang.\n\nHaving warped space without mass is basically saying that there is gravity in some region of space without a known cause, at least as far as General Relativity goes. Some people have tried to get rid of dark matter with new theories of gravity - this is essentially what you're proposing - but thus far it never really works out.
130138
The Coriolis effect. If the Earth were not rotating, the effect would be a mysterious "fifth force" with no physical explanation. See the source for details. \nAccelerating frames are absolutely determined. The above references to relativity theory are completely incorrect; Newtonian theory equates frames with constant velocity, Einstein equates an accelerating frame with a local curvature (gravitation). This is all the two theories have to do with the badly referenced quotations above.\nThe amount of pseudoscience and bad science on these forums is strange, given the amount of knowledge freely available over the internet.
367704
It has been proven that space is curved, and there's two observations that stand out in my mind.\n\nOne is the precession of Mercury's orbit. This was something that could not be explained using Newton's classical mechanics, but fit perfectly with Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (which predicts that space-time is curved).\n\nThe second is based on an observation made some years ago during a total solar eclipse. A star which would have appeared near the edge of the disc of the sun was seen within the sun-moon disc (or at least measurably closer). In other words, as the light beam traveled near the sun was bent toward the sun (this is known as the "Gravitational Len's Effect"). Since the photon is a massless particle, the gravitational effect can't affect it. Therefore, the conclusion is that space-time is warped around massive bodies (even around the Earth, but the effect is barely noticeable, if at all).
243771
Up to this point in time, science has yet to DEFINITIVELY establish the speed of gravity, but it's generally thought to be the same as the speed of light. The search for gravitons and so-called gravity waves, along with research on gravitational lensing, could settle the issue.
475187
According to Newtonian gravity, gravitational force is -GMm/r^2.  Any mass experiences a gravitational force toward every other mass in the universe, proportional to the product of their masses, and inversely proportional to the square of their distance.  This means my body experiences a certain gravitational force from the sun, no matter what else is happening in the universe.  That says it would be impossible to shield me from the sun's gravity.\n\nTo find the net gravitational force on me, simply do a vector sum of all the gravitational forces on me from all other masses in the universe.  Simple to say, not so simple to do.\n\nThat sum is zero at the center of mass of the universe, wherever that is.  Unless the expansion of the universe is perfectly uniform, that point will shift with time.  I could find other points where the sum is zero.  I move away from that center of mass but toward a large nearby mass, just close enough that the pull of that nearby mass exactly balances the pull of the rest of the universe.  These will be single points, not regions.  At these points, I still can't say there's no gravitational force acting on me.  But I can say there are countless gravitational forces acting on me, but their sum is zero.\n\nLet's say I tell you I found such a zero-sum spot, about 1/3 of the way between our sun and Alpha Centauri, and I take you there.  How will you know I am telling you the truth?  The principle of equivalence says that there's no test you could make to tell whether the net gravitational force there is zero, or whether you are just accelerating according to the effect of the nonzero net force on your mass.\n\nThe relativistic warping of spacetime in the presence of gravitational mass is more a way of representing or measuring that force, rather than explaining it.  Neither Newton nor Einstein could tell us why gravity exists or how it works.  If spacetime is not warped in your region, it doesn't mean the gravitational field is zero, it means it is uniform.  And again, how would you tell whether spacetime is warped in your region?\n\nI've tried for decades to think of a gravity shield or a gravity insulator.  If I do find one, watch for my Nobel Prize in physics, and for me to quickly surpass Bill Gates on the wealth scale.
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.
523544
The product of space and time is not so much an abstraction as much as an aberrated perception. ( Why, In GR theory, is everyone always going deductively DOWNWARDS into the collapse rather than inductively tracking the event back to original precipitating events?  The answers are THERE.)
502649
Gravity is defined in a new term.  That is the latest report\n    of the atomic relativities of the quasar versus the quantum\n    in an isolated directive.  Defined by the mineral interactions.\n    What?  Gravity has the interactive quantities added to the\n    average force of one planet attracts to another Plus the ionic\n     pentanmeters(depends on the substance with conditions).\n    So gravity is present in all materials if left in free space, or put\n     into orbits, or put on a plane.  This last set is the theoretic\n     gravity of space infinitives to the nth degree, showing that all\n     materials have the origin of gravity values as established at\n     the desk of the elements chart, and its properties.  The flight\n     of planets is a true measure of gravities, showing such things\n     as anti-gravity points like in a space capsule.  The interaction\n      really never out drives the elements chart standard.
494327
Its origins and nature are still open to postulation. But it is an attractive force only between any two masses and Newton concluded in his uneiversal laws of gravitation that the attractive force (F) was proportional to the masses interacting(M1 and M2) and inversely proportional to the square of their distance apart (r)\n\nie F α M1*M2/d²\nwhence \n\nF = G*M1*M2/r² \nwhere G is the universal gravitation constant\nG ≈ 6.6742 x 10^(-11) Nm²/kg²
629597
Einstein's law of gravitation. It certainly looks nicer than Newton's :P