Relativity - Gravity

[obsrvr524]

I have a question for you science geeks.

In Newtonian physics gravity is treated as a mysterious force that moves objects together. And in relativity gravity is depicted as a spacetime vortex. But what in relativity causes the actual moving of objects together?

[Urwrongx1000]

Curves in space and time

You can't think of it like normal geography, you have to consider rise and drops in terrain that is beyond 3 dimensions

Think of it like Acceleration, which is a measure of change of velocity, how do you "know" you're accelerating or decelerating?

[obsrvr524]

I get the curved space and time bit. What I'm wondering about is why the objects are attracted together. What makes them move.

[Urwrongx1000]

Momentum, I think the better way to understand Relativity is to imagine that the object is not moving, but instead the environment is moving

[obsrvr524]

Momentum, I think the better way to understand Relativity is to imagine that the object is not moving, but instead the environment is moving

I don't think that answered my question.

Momentum is what you have when movement is already under way. But what I am asking is what began the movement.

If you could place two steel balls close to each other far out in space and then quickly backed away, Newton would say that a "gravitation force" would cause the balls to start moving toward each other and eventually touch.

There seems to be no explanation concerning where that force comes from other than "it just is what it is". And I am not disputing that. I am asking instead what relativity claims to be the cause of the balls to start moving toward each other and eventually touch. A different perspective of the scene doesn't tell me anything about why the movement began or ended with balls actually touching.

I am asking this because James proposed what seems like a valid theory as to where that "gravitational force" came from - why it exists at all. But I don't know if he is agreeing or disagreeing with relativity. Does relativity even address the question at all?

[MagsJ]

_
What if someone here offers a sound explanation? Do we win a prize/get props?

[Urwrongx1000]

Momentum, I think the better way to understand Relativity is to imagine that the object is not moving, but instead the environment is moving

I don't think that answered my question.

Momentum is what you have when movement is already under way. But what I am asking is what began the movement.

If you could place two steel balls close to each other far out in space and then quickly backed away, Newton would say that a "gravitation force" would cause the balls to start moving toward each other and eventually touch.

There seems to be no explanation concerning where that force comes from other than "it just is what it is". And I am not disputing that. I am asking instead what relativity claims to be the cause of the balls to start moving toward each other and eventually touch. A different perspective of the scene doesn't tell me anything about why the movement began or ended with balls actually touching.

I am asking this because James proposed what seems like a valid theory as to where that "gravitational force" came from - why it exists at all. But I don't know if he is agreeing or disagreeing with relativity. Does relativity even address the question at all?

Relativity does not explain it all. It can very well be other physical and motivational forces, such as electro-magnetism or magnetic force, that 'attracts' or 'pulls' one object to another.

Personally, I think gravitational force is directly proportional to magnetic force. Mass by virtue of its composition, interacts with all other mass regardless of the space-time distance and continuum.

[obsrvr524]

Relativity does not explain it all.

That reflects what I am seeing. So perhaps relativity just assumes the same Newtonian forces but adds the distortion of space and time into the mix. It seems that someone should have stated that at some point years ago. Maybe it was just taken for granted.

It can very well be other physical and motivational forces, such as electro-magnetism or magnetic force, that 'attracts' or 'pulls' one object to another.

Personally, I think gravitational force is directly proportional to magnetic force. Mass by virtue of its composition, interacts with all other mass regardless of the space-time distance and continuum.

That is similar to what James was saying except he points out that it all occurs on an "ultra-minuscule scale" - "affectance".

James' claim was that gravitation is really just an aberrant migration of the ultra minuscule EMR (electromagnetic radiation - "affectance") that comprises each subatomic particle. That seems very probably true especially in light of conventional physics giving no explanation at all.

James objected to special relativity but not general relativity so maybe there is no conflict here. I am just trying to see if I have to story straight.