Newton's law of gravity or Einstein's general theory of relativity?

[Remon]

I don't know much about the two ideas but I'm confused because the two theories seem to contradict each other, if all matter (with mass) bends space, then there is no such thing as "gravity", or maybe gravity is just the actual bending of space, so should we refute the idea of "gravity"? or just alter its meaning to be "the bending of space due to the presence of some amount of mass"?

 

[arildno]

As long as you see Newton's law as THE valid approximation of Einstein's theory for "everyday" occurences, there is no contradiction.

 

[Remon]

As long as you see Newton's law as THE valid approximation of Einstein's theory for "everyday" occurences, there is no contradiction.

So you're saying that we ("we" being the general public, not scientists or physicists, etc.) should just believe the somewhat "inferior" theory (gravity) simply because it's easier and easily applies to "everyday" actions? Because I would have it if we were all informed of both ideas since the way I see it is high school and university (so far) have always talked about gravity & mass but never once mentioned relativity, which just angers me

 

[russ_watters]

I think Relativity should be taught in high school physics too, but for everyday use for motion or gravity calcs, it is basically never needed. GPS is so ubiquitous now though it would be nice if people knew how it applied there.

 

[Remon]

I think Relativity should be taught in high school physics too, but for everyday use for motion or gravity calcs, it is basically never needed.

But it still applies to every object with mass, even apples and oranges bend space to a certain degree, so not only does it apply to everyday objects but its also just as easy to understand as gravity, I hate being taught the wrong ideas or not even taught the correct ones at all.
School taught me that every object on Earth has a certain (yet very tiny) gravitational influence on other objects, but that's only part of the story, why couldn't they just simply tell us that "space bends around mass"? its very simple and applies to everyday objects...broken education system I suppose.
I know I'm ranting about schools but it just makes me angry that all my knowledge about relativity comes from outside of school

 

[phinds]

But it still applies to every object with mass, even apples and oranges bend space to a certain degree, so not only does it apply to everyday objects but its also just as easy to understand as gravity, I hate being taught the wrong ideas or not even taught the correct ones at all.
School taught me that every object on Earth has a certain (yet very tiny) gravitational influence on other objects, but that's only part of the story, why couldn't they just simply tell us that "space bends around mass"? its very simple and applies to everyday objects...broken education system I suppose.
I know I'm ranting about schools but it just makes me angry that all my knowledge about relativity comes from outside of school

I think you are overly optimistic in thinking that the general public will understand "mass bends space" as easily as they can accept "objects attract each other".

Also, no more than a tiny fraction of the populace will EVER have any actual use for GR but a far greater number will have need of Newton.

 

[Office_Shredder]

But it still applies to every object with mass, even apples and oranges bend space to a certain degree,

To such a small degree that before relativity was discovered nobody could find a contradiction in Newton's theory.

so not only does it apply to everyday objects but its also just as easy to understand as gravity,

Neither of these statements is true. To everyday objects relativity's effect will be smaller than the number of significant digits, and general relativity is way harder to understand on a computational level than gravity is.

I hate being taught the wrong ideas or not even taught the correct ones at all.

General relativity is also wrong (experimentally contradicted on a quantum level), so how do you feel about that?

 

[Remon]

I think you are overly optimistic in thinking that the general public will understand "mass bends space" as easily as they can accept "objects attract each other".

I think I classify as "general public" and I think I mostly understand the concept of relativity, so why not everyone else? I taught it myself and I'm not even 19 yet (I'm not even smart too) so I don't see how everyone else would have difficulty understanding at least just the main idea (not the methods behind it) especially when someone else teaches them the idea (rather than being self-taught), not to mention that many other ideas that are being taught at other subjects are actually harder to understand than the simple "bending of space"

 

[arildno]

So you're saying that we ("we" being the general public, not scientists or physicists, etc.) should just believe the somewhat "inferior" theory (gravity) simply because it's easier and easily applies to "everyday" actions? Because I would have it if we were all informed of both ideas since the way I see it is high school and university (so far) have always talked about gravity & mass but never once mentioned relativity, which just angers me

Since you show such extreme contempt for me, by not bothering to relate to WHAT I wrote, but just invented a strawman argument, I see no reason to discuss with you before you cite my properly (rather than your despicable "so you are saying"-falsifacition), AND give an unconditional apology for your disrespectful behaviour.

 

[Remon]

General relativity is also wrong (experimentally contradicted on a quantum level), so how do you feel about that?

Then how come it's still accepted today?

 

[Nugatory]

Then how come it's still accepted today?

This might be a good time to introduce a classic essay on the subject:
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

 

[Remon]

Since you show such extreme contempt for me, by not bothering to relate to WHAT I wrote, but just invented a strawman argument, I see no reason to discuss with you before you cite my properly (rather than your despicable "so you are saying"-falsifacition), AND give an unconditional apology for your disrespectful behaviour.

Relax, I think it was just a simple misunderstanding. I thought you meant that we should all just "trust" more in gravity (and ignore relativity to a degree) due to the convenience of it being applied to "everyday occurrences", I guess I misunderstood you? Don't get so defensive, the last thing I want to do is start an immature argument over the internet based on a simple misunderstanding, I didn't mean to offend you or anyone else.

 

[arildno]

Relax, I think it was just a simple misunderstanding. I thought you meant that we should all just "trust" more in gravity (and ignore relativity to a degree) due to the convenience of it being applied to "everyday occurrences", I guess I misunderstood you? Don't get so defensive, the last thing I want to do is start an immature argument over the internet based on a simple misunderstanding, I didn't mean to offend you or anyone else.

Well, stop thinking, since you don't have the mental discipline to do that yet.
Start quoting people directly instead, rather than making your own fantasybased versions of it.
THEN, in direct reference to the words in those quotes, you may start to build up sufficient mental discipline.

 

[phinds]

I think I classify as "general public" and I think I mostly understand the concept of relativity, so why not everyone else? I taught it myself and I'm not even 19 yet (I'm not even smart too) so I don't see how everyone else would have difficulty understanding at least just the main idea (not the methods behind it) especially when someone else teaches them the idea (rather than being self-taught), not to mention that many other ideas that are being taught at other subjects are actually harder to understand than the simple "bending of space"

You would likely find it informative, and apparently surprising, if you were to pick the next 10 people coming down the hall in your school and see how they do at understanding the two concepts.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I don't know much about the two ideas but I'm confused because the two theories seem to contradict each other, if all matter (with mass) bends space, then there is no such thing as "gravity", or maybe gravity is just the actual bending of space, so should we refute the idea of "gravity"? or just alter its meaning to be "the bending of space due to the presence of some amount of mass"?

There is a general misconception (for acceptable reasons) that the concept of gravity as a manifestation of curved space-time and space-time geometry is unique to general relativity (GR). There are entire classes of gravitational theories which can be cast this way, including Newtonian gravity. The differences between Newtonian gravity and GR go beyond the interpretation of gravity as a manifestation of space-time geometry vs. as a force.

Indeed roughly speaking the differences between these two gravitational theories are codified in the differences between their field equations, in particular in that Newtonian gravity is a scalar theory of gravity whereas GR is a tensor theory of gravity, and that GR is a relativistic field theory whereas Newtonian gravity is not. These differences dissolve when we go to the Newtonian limit wherein the experimental predictions of the two theories are, to sufficient order in $1/c^2$ (usually first order), exactly the same (if we don't ignore higher order terms in $1/c^2$ then effects like frame-dragging will arise).

In other words, there is absolutely no contradiction between the two in terms of interpretation; the differences are manifest in the differences in experimental predictions (which derive from the differences in the field equations) and foundations of the respective theories (i.e. relativistic vs non-relativistic) when one is not in the Newtonian regime.

 

[Remon]

Well, stop thinking, since you don't have the mental discipline to do that yet.
Start quoting people directly instead, rather than making your own fantasybased versions of it.
THEN, in direct reference to the words in those quotes, you may start to build up sufficient mental discipline.

Since it seems that all you want to do is try to insult me in an "intelligent" way just for a simple misunderstanding, I'm just going to stop replying back to you.

 

[arildno]

Since it seems that all you want to do is try to insult me in an "intelligent" way, I'm just going to stop replying back to you.

Fine.
Tip:
Start reading people's posts, rather than making travesties out of them. You are not yet there

 

[Remon]

You would likely find it informative, and apparently surprising, if you were to pick the next 10 people coming down the hall in your school and see how they do at understanding the two concepts.

Are you saying that a lot of people actually understand the two concepts but most of them just keep it to themselves? Because I thought of that before since I obviously can't be "one of the few", but I don't see many people mentioning relativity in everyday conversations lol

 

[WannabeNewton]

I think I classify as "general public" and I think I mostly understand the concept of relativity, so why not everyone else? I taught it myself and I'm not even 19 yet (I'm not even smart too)

Based off of your posts, it is clear that you don't understand relativity in the least and that you have an even bigger misconception about higher theories that extend classical mechanics in general. I don't see what age has to do with this.

 

[russ_watters]

I think I classify as "general public" and I think I mostly understand the concept of relativity, so why not everyone else? I taught it myself and I'm not even 19yet...

Have you ever attempted to perform a calculation using General Relativity?

 

[Remon]

Have you ever attempted to perform a calculation using General Relativity?

I understand perfectly well how these things can get incredibly complicated (which is why only a genius such as Einstein could come up with them in the first place), BUT like I said before in a comment, most people would probably understand "just the main idea (not the methods behind it)" (not the calculations) but we should be at least introduced to the theory in school. Also, I really don't want to get off-topic, I just want someone to (hopefully) tell me a simple relationship/explanation between the two ideas.

 

[arildno]

"I just want someone to (hopefully) tell me a simple relationship/explanation between the two ideas. "
And I gave you that.
In the very first post. Newtonian physics is the valid approximation of Einsteinian physics for "everyday occurences".

But, you didn't bother to read it.

 

[Remon]

Based off of your posts, it is clear that you don't understand relativity in the least and that you have an even bigger misconception about higher theories that extend classical mechanics in general. I don't see what age has to do with this.

I'm just saying that even someone as ignorant and as uneducated or young as me can understand the simple "bending of space", but NOT the calculations/proofs behind it, therefore only the idea should be taught in schools, NOT the math behind it (obviously) since it explains a lot more than the theory of gravity

 

[arildno]

The idea isn't independent of the calculations, but intimately interwoven with them, and necessarily warped without them.

 

[Remon]

"I just want someone to (hopefully) tell me a simple relationship/explanation between the two ideas. "
And I gave you that.
In the very first post. Newtonian physics is the valid approximation of Einsteinian physics for "everyday occurences".

But, you didn't bother to read it.

... I did bother to read it, and since its just an approximation (which I already assumed), I asked why can't scientists just completely refute the idea of gravity and work only with relativity? since not only does it include "gravity" (or bending), but it explains a lot more than that

 

[Remon]

The idea isn't independent of the calculations, but intimately interwoven with them, and necessarily warped without them.

Ok, since you have more knowledge than me on this subject, I suppose you are right. But why can't scientists (not the general public) completely refute the idea of "gravity" and work only with relativity?

 

[arildno]

"completely refute the idea of "gravity" and work only with relativity?"
-------------------------------------------------
Why should they?

The two ideas are not mutually exclusive, but compatible, enriching perspectives of The Same Thing.

 

[Remon]

"completely refute the idea of "gravity" and work only with relativity?"
-------------------------------------------------
Why should they?

The two ideas are not mutually exclusive, but compatible, enriching perspectives of The Same Thing.

I understand that they can coexist, but relativity includes both attraction and space-bending, whereas gravity only includes attraction

 

[Vanadium 50]

Closed pending moderation. Of which there will be a lot of.

 

[russ_watters]

I understand perfectly well how these things can get incredibly complicated (which is why only a genius such as Einstein could come up with them in the first place), BUT like I said before in a comment, most people would probably understand "just the main idea (not the methods behind it)" (not the calculations) but we should be at least introduced to the theory in school. Also, I really don't want to get off-topic, I just want someone to (hopefully) tell me a simple relationship/explanation between the two ideas.

I'm sorry, but an attempt to teach Relativity without math is not much more than a history lesson. That's the difference here: Newton's law of gravity is actually taught in high school, in a few days - math and all. Relativity can't be. Now I'm not opposed to a 1 hour history lesson on Relativity, but you should not confuse that with the same level of scientific teaching as Newton's gravity.