I know that Einstein's understanding of how gravity works (and what it is) have been observed to be much more accurate than Newton's, to the point of being considered the truth. Still, what would be some differences in physics (and reality itself) should Newton be right? What things would work differently due to how different the concept of gravity would be and what other mechanics would be affected by this?
In the Wikipedia article , it says     After Newtonian gravitation was found to be inconsistent with special relativity, . . .   I don't see how Newtonian gravitation itself is inconsistent with special relativity.  After all, Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation is completley analogous to Coulomb's Law, so it would seem that, if there were an analogous "gravitational magnetic field", one could formulate a theory of gravitation in exact analogy with Maxwell's Theory of Electromagnetism, and of course, this would automatically be consistent with Special Relativity.  What about this approach to gravitation does not work?  The only problem I could see with this is the lack of evidence for a "gravitational magnetic field".  That being said, gravity is "weak" as it is, and my guess is that it would be extremely difficult to set up an experiment in which a massive body were moving fast enough for this "magnetic field effect" to be obsevable.  EDIT:  As has been pointed out to me in the answers, Newton itself is inconsistent with SR.  Similarly, however, so is Coulomb's Law, yet, electromagnetism is still consistent with SR.  Thus, how do we know that it is not the case that Newton's Law is the special "static" case of a more general gravitomagnetic theory exactly analogous to Maxwell's Theory:  Let $\mathbf{G}$ be the gravitation field, let $\rho$ be the mass density, and $\mathbf{J}$ be the mass current density, let $\gamma _0$ be defined so that $\frac{1}{4\pi \gamma _0}=G$, the Universal Gravitation Constant, let $\nu _0$ be defined so that $\frac{1}{\sqrt{\gamma _0\nu _0}}=c$, and suppose there exists a field $\mathbf{M}$, the gravitomagnetic field, so that the following equations hold: $$ \vec{\nabla}\cdot \mathbf{G}=-\frac{\rho}{\gamma _0} $$ $$ \vec{\nabla}\cdot \mathbf{M}=0 $$ $$ \vec{\nabla}\times \mathbf{G}=-\frac{\partial \mathbf{M}}{\partial t} $$ $$ \vec{\nabla}\times \mathbf{M}=\nu _0\mathbf{J}+\gamma _0\nu _0\frac{\partial \mathbf{G}}{\partial t} $$ where theses fields would produce on a mass $m$ moving with velocity $\mathbf{v}$ in our inertial frame the Lorentz force $\mathbf{F}=m\left( \mathbf{G}+\mathbf{v}\times \mathbf{M}\right)$.  This theory would automatically be consistent with SR and would reduce to Newton's Law of Gravitation for the case of gravitostatics:  $\frac{\partial \mathbf{G}}{\partial t}=\frac{\partial \mathbf{M}}{\partial t}=\mathbf{J}=0$.  (To be clear, you can't just set the time derivatives equal to $\mathbf{0}$ as it seems I have done.  Upon doing so, you obtain the corresponding static theory, which is technically incorrect (as you can easily see because it won't be relativistically invariant), but is nevertheless often a useful approximation.)  My question can thus be phrased as:  without appealing directly to GR, what is wrong with this theory?
Allow given application to run as administrator, without prompting user for credentials Relationship between complex number and vectors What is the relation  between complex numbers and vectors?  I have read in some places "a complex number a 2-dimensional vector".  One can easily observe that $i\cdot i=-1$ in complex multiplication like the cross product of vectors.    Is  vector only the generalisation of complex number to n dimensions?   Is there any fundamental difference between those two? . If you filter out a range of wavelengths, how can you calculate the energy from the remaining wavelengths?   To make it concrete, say we filter everything below 450nm or alternatively above 700nm. Unable to install Ubuntu on Lenovo Y500 I have a third-party library which consists mainly of a large number of static (.a) library files.  I can compile this into a single .a library file, but I really need it to be a single .so shared library file.  Is there any way to convert a static .a file into a shared .so file?  Or more generally is there a good way to combine a huge number of static .a files with a few .o object files into a single .so file? How to dynamically change a web page's title? How do electrons know which path to take in a circuit? The current is maximum through those segments of a circuit that offer the least resistance. But how do electrons know beforehand that which path will resist their drift the least? Orbiting a specific point - Orbiting Camera How would I create a camera that with the mouse, it allows you to orbit around a specifc position, with the camera always facing that point? I would also like it to be able to always be at a constant distance from the point, and be able to orbit around it in every direction.   Any ideas? Hole-and-nail paradox in special relativity Yesterday we started relativity on our physics class, and my professor taught us a few concepts. We did some examples on how things changed by looking them from different reference systems, and a paradox came to my mind from an example he did on the blackboard:  Suppose that we have a bug inside a hole (and suppose that the height of the bug is $0$). This hole is $L$ meters deep. There's a man outside the hole that wants to kill the bug with a nail of length $l$, with $l&lt;L$. Obviously, it's not possible for him to kill the bug by trying to push the nail in the hole. However, if the nail moves really fast, from it's reference system the hole will have a height $L_n&lt;L$, and if it moves fast enough then it will happen that $L_n&lt;l$, so he finally could kill the bug. On the other hand, the bug knows that from his reference system, the nail will have a lenght $l_b&lt;l$, so it would never reach him.  Is it possible to quantify the problem? How is it possible that the nail reach the bug from it's reference system and from the bug's reference system it's even smaller than before? How can I make two objects interact I am making an animation where a person sits down on sofa. I need to make it such that when the person sits on the sofa or presses it with his hand, it deforms. However in my case, when he presses on the sofa, his hands goes trough the sofa. How can I fix this problem? Calculate the area on a sphere of the intersection of two spherical caps Given a sphere of radius $r$ with two spherical caps on it defined by the radii ($a_1$ and $a_2$) of the bases of the spherical caps, given a separation of the two spherical caps by angle $\theta$, how do you calculate the surface area of that intersection?   To clarify, the area is that of the curved surface on the sphere defined by the intersection. At the extreme where both $a_1,a_2 = r$, we would be describing a spherical lune.   Alternatively define the spherical caps by the angles  $\Phi_1 = \arcsin(a_1/r)$ and $\Phi_2 = \arcsin(a_2/r)$. June 13th 2017 Microsoft blocked handling HTML markup in SharePoint calculated fields - how to get the same functionality back On June 13th 2017 all SharePoint calculated columns with HTML markup stopped working.   Basically the fields now render text (regardless of setting the data type to number). The gist of the notice from Microsoft () is:     In Microsoft SharePoint lists and libraries, calculated fields that   are running in the classic UI mode can be used to display results   based on Excel-like formulas. This is a long standing capability, and   is documented in Calculate data in lists or libraries.      Some users have added HTML markup or script elements to calculated   fields. This is an undocumented use of the feature, and we will begin   blocking execution of custom markup in calculated fields in SharePoint   Online from June 13, 2017 onwards. We are also providing this as a   configurable option for on-premises in SharePoint Server 2016 and   SharePoint Server 2013 via the June 2017 and subsequent Public   Updates.   As we don't have on premise SharePoint (online), we have to find an immediate work around, given that this impacts our processes and thus, business.   Is anyone aware of third party applications that will allow for HTML, script markup (that works with SP online)? How to Convert 0 to 10V analog signal to 0 to 2.5V for ADC input? I have an analog signal which ranges between 0V and 10V.  I want to linearly scale it down to 0 to 2.5V for my ADC.     I'm concerned that using a resistive voltage divider will affect signal quality.  Is this true?  If it's not true, what value resistor should I use for voltage divider? Why is $x^0 = 1$ except when $x = 0$? I was born in Brazil and came to the United States at the age of 7, in 2007. I no longer need to live in the United States because I have found success in investing and no longer depend on having a job. I am going to buy property in my home country soon, but I have just turned 18.   Will I ever be able to return to the United States to see my friends and other family members? Even if it is a 30-day visa? And, if so, in the future, am I still eligible for the EB-5 visa? Will I be barred from entry? SF Story about human adapting to alien environment #!/bin/bash - no such file or directory I've created a bash script but when I try to execute it, I get   #!/bin/bash no such file or directory   I need to run the command: bash script.sh for it to work.  How can I fix this? Minimum of the Gamma Function $\Gamma (x)$ for $x>0$. How to find $x_{\min}$? Cycle option when drawing between nodes in TikZ Cycle lets you close curves when drawing, and  \coordinate (a) at (0,0); \coordinate (b) at (1,0); \coordinate (c) at (0.5, -1); \draw (a) -- (b) -- (c) -- cycle;   works fine. Shouldn't also  \node (a) at (0,0) {}; \node (b) at (1,0) {}; \node (c) at (0.5, -1) {}; \draw (a) -- (b) -- (c) -- cycle;   give the same result?  The former gives a triangle, while the second doesn't close up. Is this a bug or am I missing something regarding the cycle option?  (Of course, as a workaround I could use the coordinates to draw the cycled path, and then draw the nodes at the same coordinates, but still...) Limits of sequences of sets