The earth is round

That, my friend, is a specific case, and definitely not a statement that Eistein made to prove that acceleration=gravity. You're saying that if the elevator was accelerating at 9,8 m/s^2, then you would not be able to tell if you were moving or if you were in the presence of a gravitational field.

That does not make acceleration and gravity the same! Have you ever considered the most likely case of you accelerating at a different rate than 9,8 m/s^2? Then gravity and acceleration would have nothing to do with each other.

Lastly:

To accelerate an object is to change its velocity, which is accomplished by altering either its speed or direction (like in case of uniform circular motion) in relation to time. It's equation is a=dv/dt, where v is the velocity and t is time

Gravity or Gravitation is a property of all objects with mass that causes them to attract each other. In everyday terms, it endows them with "weight." E=M C^2

Acceleration and gravity are not the same. You can also ask your physics professor.

k first off then: E=MxC^2

this refers to energy being proportional to mass, something very valid indeed in nuclear physics and nearly all physics applications...but u cannot seriously be suggesting that gravity is energy? being a mass in a gravitational field gives you potential energy...as u have the potential to gain kinetic energy as u fall towards the object offering the gravity.

as for this statement: "That does not make acceleration and gravity the same! Have you ever considered the most likely case of you accelerating at a different rate than 9,8 m/s^2? Then gravity and acceleration would have nothing to do with each other."

obviously gravity is not always 9.8 m/s^2 it varies depending on the mass of the object, and the distance from the gravitational supplier


also the fact that you even state that gravity is measured in m/s^2 shows that gravity is acceleration.

to explain furth, the gravitational pull of an object is shown by the equation: g=((GM)/r^2)^1/2

this is shown through combining the equations: F=(GMm)/r^2 and F=ma

figure this out...and you come up with a=((GM)/r^2)^1/2 where a is gravity...or for gods sake google it before u make urself sound even more idiotic

You guys don't understand what I'm saying, do you?

"Einstein stated it thus:
we [...] assume the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corresponding acceleration of the reference system. (Einstein, 1907)
That is, remaining at rest in a uniform gravitational field is physically equivalent to experiencing an acceleration (e.g. being at rest with respect to the Earth, while under the influence of its gravitational field, is an accelerated state of motion)."

Gravity is a form acceleration, not acceleration in general. Which part of gravity does NOT mean acceleration do you not understand? I never stated anywhere that gravity is independent of acceleration. You FE friends were the ones suggesting that gravity=acceleration, therefore equating the two under any circumstances!

That's completely ridiculous. Gravity and acceleration are not the same thing at all. Einstein would turn in his grave if someone actually thought he said that.

also:

gravity and acceleration are NOT the same!

nuff sed u dumbarse  :?

As usual woopedaz, you're getting angry when you can't prove something. If it makes you feel better to start swearing at people, fine with me. I couldn't care less about your "virtual" insults. It's just too bad that you don't understand what I'm saying.

?

dude ur wrong! of course im getting angry, u won't listen to reason!  :x

To explain how gravity can behave in this way, Einstein began by demonstrating that it is not necessary to think of gravity as a force. According to Newton's theory, an apple falls to the floor because of the force of gravity pulls the apple down. Einstein pointed out that the apple would appear to behave in exactly the same way in space, far from the Earth's gravity, if the floor were to accelerate upwards. In other words, the floor comes up to meet the apple.
In the figure(shown on the right), the famous two gentlemen are watching an apple fall towards the floor of their compartments. They have no way of telling who is at rest on the Earth and who is in the hypothetical elevator moving upward at a constantly increasing speed. This is an example of Einstein's principle of equivalence, which states that in a small volume of space, the downward pull of gravity can be accurately and completely duplicated by an upward acceleration of the observer. The principal of equivalence allowed Einstein to focus entirely on motion, rather than force, in discussing gravity.

Please read the Wiki I posted or look it up somewhere, this is getting old.

Mate... I'm NOT wrong. I never said that gravity isn't a FORM of acceleration, nor did I swear at you or said you had a closed mind which I won't even get into, because if you like to insult people, then you just weren't brought up well.

What you don't want to understand is that when you read the Equivalence principle (which you can do on wikipedia, like your other friend pointed out), it doesn't say ANYHWERE that acceleration=gravity i.e. that their definitions are the same! That does NOT mean that gravity isn't a form of acceleration, which is what you are saying and I agree with!

i agree that acceleration does not equal gravity in all cases (such as cars, running, etc)

but GRAVITY=ACCELERATION

Remember when I said they were equivalent?
Read:

At that time, he made the observation that the acceleration of bodies towards the center of the Earth with acceleration 1g (g = 9.81 m/s2 is the acceleration of gravity at the Earth's surface.) is equivalent to the acceleration of inertially moving bodies that one would observe if one was on a rocket in free space being accelerated at a rate of 1g.

I did read that your post. I also read the article on wikipedia a while back. Did you read Einstein's conclusion? "The equivalence principle proper was introduced by Albert Einstein in 1907. At that time, he made the observation that the acceleration of bodies towards the center of the Earth with acceleration 1g (g = 9.81 m/s2 is the acceleration of gravity at the Earth's surface.) is equivalent to the acceleration of inertially moving bodies that one would observe if one was on a rocket in free space being accelerated at a rate of 1g" - WHERE did you get the idea that acceleration and gravity are always the same from that?

They are freakin' equivalent!

"i agree that acceleration does not equal gravity in all cases (such as cars, running, etc)

but GRAVITY=ACCELERATION"

By '=' you mean to say that gravity is a FORM of acceleration, not that it is EQUAL to acceleration, because like you said acceleration does NOT equal gravity in ALL cases! YES! THAT IS TRUE! I can't believe that it took you guys 6 posts to understand my point.

TheEngineer you are taking me to the verge of exasperation... they are NOT equivalent! Gravity is a FORM of acceleration, NOT acceleration in general! Do you understand what you read m8? It's SO clearly stated on wikipedia!

The argument that Einstein is making is that gravity is not a FORCE, like Newton said, but a FORM of acceleration. He is NOT saying that gravity IS acceleration.
LOOK ---> QUOTE: "By contrast, in Newtonian mechanics, gravity is assumed to be a force".
Yes, Einstein is trying to create a more uniform theory!

i understood this point earlier on...u may notice in all of my previous posts i always state that gravity is acceleration, however u seemed to say that this was false? telling me that acceleration was not gravity...yes i understood this bibicul, perhaps u should read my earlier posts a little more clearly and see that i was at no stage saying that acceleration is always gravity.

I did read your posts, friend. And I agree with you 100% if what you're trying to say is that gravity is a form of acceleration and not a force.

However, I was replying to a very short post from a while back (which, by the way, had nothing to do with the original message that I put up, just like this discussion doesn't) which simply stated "acceleration=gravity and vice-versa" or something along these lines.

While I know, just like you, that gravity is a form of acceleration, the '=' sign implies "Two mathematical objects are equal if and only if they are precisely the same in every way. This defines a binary relation, equality, denoted by the sign of equality "=" in such a way that the statement "x = y" means that x and y are equal." Gravity and acceleration are NOT precisely the same in every way, which means that they are NOT equal. So saying "gravity=acceleration" IS wrong. That is my only point.

Gravity is a FORM of acceleration, NOT acceleration in general, as you stated yourself. What is the problem?

(I'm going to get food, it's noon here; tty guys after lunch)

TheEngineer you are taking me to the verge of exasperation... they are NOT equivalent! Gravity is a FORM of acceleration, NOT acceleration in general! Do you understand what you read m8? It's SO clearly stated on wikipedia!

CAN YOU NOT READ??  YOU MUST BE THE MOST DENSE PERSON THAT HAS COME TO THIS SITE IN A LONG TIME.

READ THE DAMN WIKI:

At that time, he made the observation that the acceleration of bodies towards the center of the Earth with acceleration 1g (g = 9.81 m/s2 is the acceleration of gravity at the Earth's surface.) is equivalent to the acceleration of inertially moving bodies that one would observe if one was on a rocket in free space being accelerated at a rate of 1g.

Do you see the part that I put in bold : "is equivalent".  How do you take that to mean "is not equivalent"?

ur arguments have tended to switch and change every second post bibicul...

its very hard to argue with someone who keeps changing their mind, but i think thats all been cleared up now

My argument never changed. I said that acceleration and gravity are not the same thing in my first post, and I uphold that. Your argument did change however, from acceleration=gravity to ""i agree that acceleration does not equal gravity in all cases (such as cars, running, etc) but GRAVITY=ACCELERATION" which makes no sense. Gravity is a form of acceleration, but it does not define acceleration. The two are not interchangeable.

TheEngineer, if you get mad, take your anger out of a punchbag. Your argument is flawed and you are not paying attention to the reading. If you look at what's written before the part that you put in bold, you will see that it is referring to a specific acceleration i.e. "the acceleration of bodies towards the center of the Earth with acceleration 1g" being equivalent to "the acceleration of inertially moving bodies that one would observe if one was on a rocket in free space being accelerated at a rate of 1g." This does not mean acceleration in general, which could be the acceleration of cars, people or any other objects towards a different point than the center of the earth. Therefore your argument does NOT prove that gravity=acceleration. Even in popular culture, objects "accelerate" they do not "gravitate". Think m8. The two are not the same thing and nowhere on wikipedia do they actually say that they are the same thing. In fact, try and look up "acceleration" and "gravity" separately. They are two DIFFERENT things, with gravity being a specific form of acceleration.

You can post as much as you want, I will keep denying your hypothesis because it is flawed and you should consult more people until you get convinced. Just because you are two people posting the same nonsense doesn't mean that you're right.

Oh and try and leave out personal attacks like "you are dense" or "you are an idiot" or whatever. They make you look angry and childish.

uh uh uhhhh, i only posted gravity=acceleration, never in my posts did i say acceleration=gravity  8-)

to which i retain my self-respect; as i can ask the question: "wat is gravity?" answer "acceleration" (well...it is a form of acceleration so it IS acceleration) therefore gravity=acceleration, even though acceleration may not equal gravity.

Woopedazz,

The symmetric property of equality states: For any quantities a and b, if a = b, then b = a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_%28mathematics%29) so if you only posted "gravity=acceleration" then you should know that by definition "acceleration=gravity" SHOULD be true (and it's not). What you were trying to say (I hope) is that gravity is a FORM of acceleration, which I agreed with from the beginning. In that case, only your wording was incorrect, while what you were saying was actually backing me up and going against TheEngineer's entire hypothesis (see below).

On page 3 of this thread GeoGuy states the following: "TheEngineer didn't say acceleration causes gravity, he said acceleration is gravity, and vice versa."

AGAIN, QUOTE from me: "[...] I was replying to a very short post from a while back (which, by the way, had nothing to do with the original message that I put up, just like this discussion doesn't) which simply stated "acceleration=gravity and vice-versa" or something along these lines."

The problem here is the WRONG perception that gravity and acceleration are EQUAL, to which I replied "that's ridiculous". My argument stands and I did not change my point of view at all from my first post.

TheEngineer, if you get mad, take your anger out of a punchbag. Your argument is flawed and you are not paying attention to the reading. If you look at what's written before the part that you put in bold, you will see that it is referring to a specific acceleration i.e. "the acceleration of bodies towards the center of the Earth with acceleration 1g" being equivalent to "the acceleration of inertially moving bodies that one would observe if one was on a rocket in free space being accelerated at a rate of 1g." This does not mean acceleration in general, which could be the acceleration of cars, people or any other objects towards a different point than the center of the earth. Therefore your argument does NOT prove that gravity=acceleration. Even in popular culture, objects "accelerate" they do not "gravitate". Think m8. The two are not the same thing and nowhere on wikipedia do they actually say that they are the same thing. In fact, try and look up "acceleration" and "gravity" separately. They are two DIFFERENT things, with gravity being a specific form of acceleration.

It is you who cannot listen to what is being said.  You seem to think that  gravity and acceleration are equivalent only when they both equal 9.8m/s^2.  However, they are always equivalent.  If I was in a rocket in space that was accelerating at .5g, I would not be able to tell if the rocket was moving or if I was in a .5g gravitational field.  Gravity does not always equal 9.8 m/s^2.

The problem here is the WRONG perception that gravity and acceleration are EQUAL, to which I replied "that's ridiculous". My argument stands and I did not change my point of view at all from my first post.

The error is in your perception.

I'm a little unclear exactly what is being argued here, but clearly as Engineer says, it is impossible to tell the difference without observation between accelerating because of gravity and accelerating because of anything else.

bibicul claims to be smarter than Einstein.

bibicul claims to be smarter than Einstein.

Has anyone wondered if bibicul and phaseshifter are the same person?

Sometimes it does seem that they share a brain between them...

They don't read as the same brain to me.

I often awake w/ Einsteinian hair, but, it doesn't seem to raise the IQ appreciably.  

I have personal experiential knowledge of special relativity, though.

Much as apparent Time is relative to observational speed; so is apparent Gravity to a lesser degree.
 When one is processing faster in SpaceTime relative to observed external reciprical observers: said Observers appear to be at sub normal speed, while to said Observers; said One appears to be at para-normal speed and agility. In point;

Upon an experimental occasion w/ brain chemistry balanced "just so" to allow such; I observed my self striding at apparent normal speed in approximately 3 meter intervals over/ above  the slow-moving, recumbent crowd tightly packed into a concert field. This was verified mid course by a close friend for whom I paused momentarily. This odd-feat incident was also confirmed by 6 other witnesses w/ in a week; 3 of whom I had never met prior.

It's annecdotal, of course, as no documentation exists at the time and I have conducted no further experiments of such extreme result. It's very difficult to replicate w/ any consistancy and the methodology is dis-recomended.

So, given the consistency of detail and sponteneity of delivery in the unsolicited eye-witness reports and my own recollection: the time dilation and differential mass, power and acceleration effects were quite exhilerating, if short lived, parts of the overall worldline I followed during the course of  that day; I tend to designate it as an anamolous singular event w/in an anamolous singular event.

My argument never changed. I said that acceleration and gravity are not the same thing in my first post, and I uphold that. Your argument did change however, from acceleration=gravity to ""i agree that acceleration does not equal gravity in all cases (such as cars, running, etc) but GRAVITY=ACCELERATION" which makes no sense. Gravity is a form of acceleration, but it does not define acceleration. The two are not interchangeable.

TheEngineer, if you get mad, take your anger out of a punchbag. Your argument is flawed and you are not paying attention to the reading. If you look at what's written before the part that you put in bold, you will see that it is referring to a specific acceleration i.e. "the acceleration of bodies towards the center of the Earth with acceleration 1g" being equivalent to "the acceleration of inertially moving bodies that one would observe if one was on a rocket in free space being accelerated at a rate of 1g." This does not mean acceleration in general, which could be the acceleration of cars, people or any other objects towards a different point than the center of the earth. Therefore your argument does NOT prove that gravity=acceleration. Even in popular culture, objects "accelerate" they do not "gravitate". Think m8. The two are not the same thing and nowhere on wikipedia do they actually say that they are the same thing. In fact, try and look up "acceleration" and "gravity" separately. They are two DIFFERENT things, with gravity being a specific form of acceleration.

You can post as much as you want, I will keep denying your hypothesis because it is flawed and you should consult more people until you get convinced. Just because you are two people posting the same nonsense doesn't mean that you're right.

Oh and try and leave out personal attacks like "you are dense" or "you are an idiot" or whatever. They make you look angry and childish.

You're wasting your time. He is unable to interpet and understand what he reads. I think that causes him to take a small part of the statment and focus only on that since he can't process it all. of course, that makes him take whatever he foused on out of context, and his reply will have no relation with the statment to which he is replying. As you can see, since we both noticed his lack of logic, he thinks we're the same person. maybe it's reversed dislexia or omething.

In any case it's not his fault. But it doesn't excuse constantly insulting people.

You're wasting your time. He is unable to interpet and understand what he reads.

I believe it is you who can't understand what is being said.  Relativity is not simple, and some people just can't get it.  Everything I have said completely agrees with what Einstein stated in Relativity.  Read what is being said about the equivalence principle.  Better yet, take a class on modern physics.

I think that causes him to take a small part of the statment and focus only on that since he can't process it all. of course, that makes him take whatever he foused on out of context, and his reply will have no relation with the statment to which he is replying.

We were talking about gravity and acceleration and that is what I have been talking about.  Maybe you should keep up with the conversation.

As you can see, since we both noticed his lack of logic, he thinks we're the same person.

I have noticed both of your guy's lack of logic and basic comprehension and that is what my comment was on.

In any case it's not his fault. But it doesn't excuse constantly insulting people.

So far you have been wrong in just about every post you have made.  When I pointed out the flaws in your argument and your lack of understanding of basic physics, you started the insults.

phaseshifter, it's funny that they think we're the same person, however by coincidence I did read a post that you put up and agreed with you - maybe we do have the same mindset, which is reassuring.

It is obvious that TheEngineer is one of the worst debators I have ever encountered. He cannot discern between acceleration and gravity, two completely different things, with gravity being a certain type of acceleration. The evidence has been brought to the table many, many times, it exists on wikipedia and it simply requires a tiny degree of understanding. Clearly anybody understands that the acceleration of a car at an increasing rate, in a direction other than the center of the earth, using propulsion to do so, is NOT the same as gravity. Gravity is not making that vehicle accelerate on the surface of earth, instead it is "pressing" the vehicle downwards, the effect of gravity being the vehicle's inability to "fly off" the surface of the earth. Einstein NEVER stated that gravity and acceleration are the same thing. The equivalence principle demonstrates that gravity is not a force, as was previously agreed, and instead an acceleration. That doesn't mean that "acceleration" in general, known as the rate of change (or derivative with respect to time) of velocity, is the same as gravity. Gravity is a property by which all objects attract each other. When a car accelerates is a random direction, using propulsion, it is affected by gravity, but also accelerates forwards using propulsion - which is independent of gravity, and thus not the same thing. In basic physics, the car is represented to be affected by two "forces", gravity (even though not a force, it is represented so for simplicity using the Newtonian model - remember, BASIC physics) being one of them. Failure to understand such a concept portrays no science skills.

It is also unfortunate that among FE'ers there is not a single person who can actually understand SIMPLE and CLEAR statements like "acceleration = gravity is a false statement". If someone actually took the effort to look into what I wrote maybe they would understand. If people here actually believe nonsense like "gravity and acceleration are the same thing" then of course they could also believe other nonsense like "the earth is flat".

It has also come to my attention that people on this forum ignore most arguments brought against them; instead they simply focus on one and, if proven wrong, they begin to launch personal attacks. Obviously this has been observed not just by me, but by enough people to be included as a general statement on wikipedia:

"The Flat Earth Society is an organization first based in England and later in Lancaster, California that advocates the belief that the Earth is not a sphere but is flat (see flat Earth). No modern religious groups or scientists have published support for this belief. This exposed the society to much outside ridicule and made it a popular metaphor for dogmatic thinking and unreasoning adherence to tradition, with the term "Flat-Earther" coming to refer to a person who rejects changes in the scientific consensus, and by extension one who lives in the past.

Although there is no currently active website for the society, someone (apparently a relative of Samuel Shenton) maintains The Flat Earth Society Forums. This website, which offers a discussion forum and an on-line archive of Flat Earth Society newsletters from the 1970s and 1980s, may or may not represent a serious attempt to rejuvenate the original Flat Earth Society."