Isnt the space time gravity phenomena and the law of Inertia Phenomena one and the same?
458286
Sounds about right to me
606294
If they were in the same place and time, 'same' mathematically, they would fall at same speed.\n\nIf they were in different places or time, the forces exert on them may be different e.g. the moon which cause tides, and the gravitational acceleration 'g' is different from place to place.\n\nMy answer is different, coz' I am not a physicist but an engineer. I take everything into account. Of course, there are many forces beside gravitation and air resistant.\n\n"No air resistant" doesn't mean that there is only gravity. Besides, gravity different from place to place.
636455
To be sure, the theory has a lot of gaps.  So it's not a Law.  All's it takes is one scientifically provable discovery that doesn't fit the theory to launch a search for a new theory that will explain the new information while keeping the old proven stuff too.  A good example is Einstein's Theory of Relativity.  Newtonian Mechanics fails at extreme sizes and speeds.  Relativity so far has been able to explain all the variances found to date at those extremes, but has not been proven to be 100% valid all the time, so it's not a law yet.  If you can discover something that invalidates evolutionary theory, you'll probably win a Nobel Prize!
278823
Lets not confused inertia with Newton first law of motion.\nFirst of all Einstein showed that what is called Inertia is really the field curvature of Space.The first law has been translated and interpreted different ways.\nIt could be stated this way.A mass moves because Power has been invested to make it move.The mass continues to move with a set amount  amount of energy unless  interaction of another mass changes the energy of the motion.\n\nThe word Newton used for power was not force. He used the word impetus.Pehaps Newton has been Misunderstood.\n\n Inertia means gravity Power that is stored in \nspace.\n\nTo make an object move you must Use Power to  counter act the Gravity power that is holding it down.
80954
Galileo's laws of motion were sort of precursors to Newton's laws of motion. The law of inertia was actually Galileo's. Galileo investigated forces, but did not go as far as Newton. Galileo also felt all bodies would fall at the same rate in a vacuum, regardless of mass, contrary to Aristotle. \n\nGalileo (possibly with his student Viviani) also realized that a pendulum swings with the same period, independent of the amplitude of the swing.
857646
I found no reference to "inertial motion."  Did you mean inertial mass (m)?  There is also the concept of motion in an inertial frame; perhaps that's what you meant.  [See source.]\n\nAn inertial mass is simply one that fits into the equation F = ma.  (There is also a gravitational mass that fits into W = mg; where W is weight and g is the acceleration due to gravity.  Einstein claims the two masses are equivalent.)  Because F = ma has been proved over and over again, even in high school labs, I think it's safe to say that m does exist.\n\nThe conservation of energy and of momentum laws are two major uses of inertial mass.  These two laws have been proved over and over again; this also validates the concept of inertial mass.
756183
Undisputed laws of physics as we experience it in our universe.\n\nThe mutual attraction between all masses and particles of matter in the universe. In a sense this is one of the best-known physical phenomena. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries gravitational astronomy, based on Newton's laws, attracted many of the leading mathematicians and was brought to such a pitch that it seemed that only extra numerical refinements would be needed in order to account in detail for the motions of all celestial bodies. In the twentieth century, however, A. Einstein shattered this complacency, and the subject is currently in a healthy state of flux.\n\nNewton's law of gravitation\n\nNewton's law of universal gravitation states that every two particles of matter in the universe attract each other with a force that acts in the line joining them, the intensity of which varies as the product of their masses and inversely as the square of the distance between them.
1063023
Don't you think that relativity dictates that those two things are the same?\nEdited my old answer after thinking-\nmy answer is:\nIt doesn't make a difference if I say I'm going 65 miles/hr or if I say everything else is and I'm going 0.  For all intents, purposes, and consequences, it's the same.  It's the same in this case, frame of reference is crucial in measurement, and so essentially, there is no difference in macro scale physics.\nGeneral theory of relativity wise, I'm still not sure about.  It seems like there might be serious consequences for this idea due to the speed of light/space relationship.  It also seems like I'm not really qualified to do those calculations, and the people who are could very well have already thought of this.  They are rather bright.\nSo my rating for viability of the idea is: (drum roll)\n23%
46273
Well\nrelativity \n\nPhysical theory, introduced by Albert Einstein, that discards the concept of absolute motion and instead treats only relative motion between two systems or frames of reference. One consequence of the theory is that space and time are no longer viewed as separate, independent entities but rather are seen to form a four-dimensional continuum called space-time. Full comprehension of the mathematical formulation of the theory can be attained only through a study of certain branches of mathematics, e.g., tensor calculus. Both the special and general theories have been established and accepted into the structure of physics. Einstein also sought unsuccessfully for many years to incorporate the theory into a unified field theory valid also for subatomic and electromagnetic phenomena.\n\nEvolution from Classical Theory\n\nThe modern theory is an extension of the simpler Galilean or Newtonian concept of relativity, which holds that the laws of mechanics are the same in one system as in another system in uniform motion relative to it. Thus, it is impossible to detect the motion of a system by measurements made within the system, and such motion can be observed only in relation to other systems in uniform motion. The older concept of relativity assumes that space and time are correctly measured separately and regards them as absolute and independent realities. The system of relativity and mechanics of Galileo and Newton is perfectly self-consistent, but the addition of Maxwell's theory of electricity and magnetism to the system leads to fundamental theoretical difficulties related to the problem of absolute motion.
690650
Some of Einstein's Ideas are already being rewritten. So, quoting him as an end-all to the question of anti-gravity really doesn't mean a whole lot. Newton's laws were rewritten after his time, as science learned more about itself. It's not unreasonable to assume that the same will occur in reguards to this taboo topic too. I remember seeing a video of a man who has come close, with a spinning top device. By itself, it weighs far too much to lift by hand. But, once it is set spinning, it could be lifted by a child. :)\n\nCurrent science is not an absolute. :) Don't give up hope!
802993
According to Special Theory of Relativity, speed of light in free space is same for all inertial observers (inertial observer is an observer possessing a  frame of reference in which Newtons law of inertia is true).\n\nWhen we study General Theory of Relativity, in the context of Cosmology we come across case when Galaxies moving with speed greater than the speed of light. Here Galaxies are beyond the particle horizon. But actually the space between the Galaxies are increasing with speed greater than the speed of light beyond the particle horizon.\n\nTachyons  are not experimentally observed entities and it got imaginary mass as well. Imaginary mass cannot be physically observed.
42478
I think you have the wrong idea.  The reconciliation between the theory of relativity and Newtonian physics is intrinsic to relativity itself.  When you consider the theory of relativity in the limit of small magnitude velocities, you recover classical mechanics.\n\nI think you mean to ask whether there has been a theory combining the standard model of particle physics with the general theory of relativity in a manner that predicts both, and the answer is no.
1168282
I read a book about this.  I don't remember the title, but this guy claimed he had it.  He claimed that all atoms are expanding at the same rate.  This is what causes gravity.  More massive objects expand in more space in less time than less massive objects.  \n\nI don't remember the details of the rest of the fields, but they all related to this expansion of atoms.
1139481
It is the results of Einsteins work on relativity. Einsteins showed gravity cause space-time to warp which will affect how objects interact with each other. Newton explained gravity as the attraction one object has for another, Einsteins theory's have made up for some of newton's short falls, such as Mercury's orbit which doesn't stay the same each time changes with each orbit. Newton laws don't account for this change but Einsteins theory's predict these changes exactly. Theory's of Space-Time were never design to explain the Ether.
694010
If the laws of physics have the same forms in all frames of reference than the cause of interaction is confirmed.\nIn the case of this question there must have  been someone who caused  this fine question.\nOther wise it would have never existed.
679366
In all the phenomenon force is the rate of change in momentum.\n\nBut the cause of change in momentum is different for different phenomenon.\n\nThe inertial force is caused by the collision of two objects;\n\nThe gravitational force is caused even when the objects are separated.\n\nThe concept of field of force comes in.\n\nThe electro-static force is caused because of charges and is acting on the masses and acting at distances.\n\nHere again the concept of field of force comes in.\n\nThere is close range attraction of forces and repulsion of forces in nuclei.\n\nThus it is natural to think of a cause which is the origin of force.\n\nYou have understood the uniqueness of force in these entire phenomenons.\n\nBut the cause is not unique.\n\nI don’t know whether it has been found or not.
21267
Gravity is the force of attraction between massive particles. Weight is determined by the mass of an object and its location in a gravitational field. While a great deal is known about the properties of gravity, the ultimate cause of the gravitational force remains an open question. General relativity is the most successful theory of gravitation to date. It postulates that mass and energy curve space-time, resulting in the phenomenon known as gravity.\n\nGravity is acceleration.  means that (if the mass is unvarying) there must be a force that causes a mass to accelerate. For a rocket ship, that is the rocket engine. For the earth, it is the compression of the mass between something on the surface of the earth and the earth's center of mass. The acceleration is in relation to spacetime in that the weight one feels is one's resistance to deviating from one's path in spacetime. The same holds true in the rocket ship except that a rocket engine supplies the force to accelerate an occupant from his spacetime path. There is no difference between the weight he feels because of gravity or the rocket.