>Hi Hilmar,
>
>Yes, Newton's formula is interesting, but it doesn't explain the physics of gravity. Since size of an object is irrelevant, then it would seem the inertia of earth traveling at around 70,000 miles per hour, in sync with our solar system, would not explain earth's gravity force. I know earth traveling at 70,000 miles per hour through space disturbs space, or the ether, but there is no evidence of an ether. How can emptiness be disturbed?

The thing is, the so-called empty space has a quite complicated structure - a structure that has yet to be explored in all of its details.

For example, it is known that "virtual particles" come to existence continuously in "empty space", and disappear after an extremely short time.

>I know that there would be effect on earth if space were curved, and the inertia of earth speeding at 70,000 miles per hour through space were forced to conform to the curvature of space, rather than traveling in a straight line as speeding object normally do. This raises another question. How can emptiness be curved or force an object to conform to its curved boundaries?

It is easier to imagine a "Euclidian space", i.e., a space where Euclid's axioms are valid. But it is now generally accepted that this applies to real space, only as a first approximation.

Imagine the surface of a sphere. On a small scale, it is a two-dimensional object. It is curved, but not along any of the two dimensions. Something similar is sometimes said to happen to our space, but any curvature would be towards a fourth dimension. Of course, this isn't anything which normal people can imagine.

> Also, how can emptiness be dragged from the influence of earth's spin?

This is an aspect of the T.O.R. which I don't understand well. But perhaps it is better not to think of the "space-time-continuum" as "emptyness" or "nothingness" - because apparently, it isn't.

> What exactly is Gravity Probe B measuring? There is definitely something at work that has effect on orbiting satellite, but is it energy, matter, emptiness, or what?

While I am not sure about the details, you probably know, from the Special T.O.R., that for a quickly-moving object, both space and time will be "distorted". Apparently, in a similar way, space and time will somehow be "distorted" when there is a rotational movement.

>I can understand how all object might appear to be moving away from earth. If earth, along with our surrounding galaxy, were shot out of a black hole's like a wad of pellets is shot from a shotgun, then the universe would be expanding much like the pattern of pellets shot out of a shotgun would be expanding as the pattern travel over distance. Although the pattern of pellets would all be traveling in the same direction, each pellet would be increasing moving away from every other pellet as the pattern expanded.
>
>Perhaps there is substance to space, but so sparse and find that it permeates all matter.
>
>Another thing is how can an object gain mass as it speed increases. Before the object can gain mass, it must hit resistance. This also would indicate that space is not emptiness, because if it were, the object would not have mass no matter what its speed; it would only have protential mass. The mass would be realized when it hit, for example, another object that restrained its inertia.

The increase of mass can be thought of as just one more example of the equivalency of mass and energy. To accelerate an object, you have to somehow pump energy into it. This will increase its energy (specifically, its kinetic energy: energy of movement). Since its energy increases, its mass must also increase. Of course, the energy (and mass) is lost somewhere else.