...forces? I admit, I can't come up with a torough understanding or mathematical background of general relativity yet, and my thought solely roots in my current reading of Brian Greene's elegant Universe, but still, from the limited - and, admitted, superficial at best - description given there, I wonder why the great theory of gen. relativy focuses so exclusively on gravity and acceleration. So, I beg your pardon if this is getting to "popular" for this part of the forum, but where is the reasoning in that? Assuming that Greene is giving a somewhat accurate abstract of the whole situation physics were confronted with back then, one found the unexplained nature of gravity troubling. General relativy linked gravity to a warping of space, according to some variance-principle (I reckon, from my background) the trajectories of objects in space time warped by massive objects suddenly became apparent and everybody went whoohoo. But at least to me, from my today's standpoint and judging the rough outline of the line of thought, it appears almost ridiculous how one could possibly have stopped thinking there. admitted, the search for a unifying theory, not to mention a toe, was not to be forseen, but from the above "finally someone provided a reason for the oh-so-mysterious gravitational force and everybody felt how great it was" I'd say that no one really could tell what the colomb force etc. was composed of either (if im not mistaken the s/m wasnt as advanced back then to speak about virtual photons etc, was it?)? So, gravity warps space and time and objects move in the curvature? Why wouldnt one have tried to apply the same principle to charge? seems to me that einstein, to name him at least once, was really happy with his newly found explanation for gravity, but somewhat daunted to try to apply the same idea to other forces, leaving the latter to the already established models. the unifying-mood struck some of a lot years later, only? so, two forces. both steming from fundamental properties of matter: mass and charge. both inverse proportional to the distance between the interacting objects. both dependent on the amount of fundamental "property". and then, one is sposed to be the phenomenical result of a warp of space and time, making objects move according to a variance principle while the other ... just is there? where is the consitency in that? please, enlighten me.