Flaw in EP - detrimental to FET

I can see why the FES like to use Einstein's 'Equivalence Principle' to back up their theory especially where UA in concerned, and its true that you cannot distinguish between a uniformly accelerating frame and gravity when the accelerations are both 1g. Here is a few quotes from the FE wiki:

Inertial mass and gravitational mass are equivalent and it follows that kinematic acceleration and acceleration due to gravity are equivalent and indistinguishable from one another. "Gravity" is simply geometry.

Equivalence
To fully understand the Equivalence Principle, imagine you are in what looks to be the inside of an elevator. There are no windows and no way to see out of the container you are in. If you drop an object, say an apple for instance, and it falls to the floor in exactly the same manner in which you would expect it to on Earth. How can you tell whether the container you are in is being influenced by a massive object's gravitational field or if the container is being accelerated? The answer is, according to Einstein, is that you cannot. Let us now say that you start to feel a sense of weightlessness and begin to float around inside your container. How can you tell whether the container you are in is in deep space far from anything exhibiting a gravitational field or if you are free-falling with the container due to gravitation. Once again, you cannot.

Upward Acceleration
In terms of a Flat Earth, the equivalence principle asserts that acceleration and gravitation are identical and indistinguishable from one another. An object being accelerated at 9.81 m/s^2 will feel all the same effects as if it were in a gravitational field in which acceleration due to gravity is 1g.

All this is perfectly true for objects with mass such as humans falling towards the Earth, or tennis balls being tossed around, projectile motions etc... However, I cannot seem to find anything in the Wiki (maybe i missed it) on the way we observe light in both accelerating frames and gravity. The EP also states that observers in both accelerating frame and a gravitational field will detect the same Doppler effects in light, and depending on which way the photons are sent, we will observe a redshift or blueshift by the same amount. see below:



This equivalence in Doppler shifts is only true when the accelerating rocket starts its acceleration. What I'm trying to say is that in gravity, like at the surface of the Earth, the observed Doppler shift is always the same and does NOT change with time. This was demonstrated in the Pound-Rebka experiment back in the 1960's where photons were dropped from a height of 22.6 m towards the surface of the Earth and they detected a blueshift (z) of    and the formula is given by: 

However, for an accelerating frame such as the rocket, the formula for the expected blueshift (z) is given by: and as you can see this is time dependant, when 
   in the denominator increases then the blueshift (z) becomes lower, there's a blueshift drift as time goes by. Here is a diagram and a link to the paper for redshift / blueshift drift for 'uniform accelerating frames':



https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.06332.pdf

Here's a plot showing how the blueshift drift against time for gravity and the accelerating frame such as a rocket or Universal Acceleration (Earth accelerating upwards) if the Pound-Rebka experiment was carried out in both cases. The time axis is for six months.


Since the Pound-Rebka experiment did NOT detect any blueshift drift over time, then we can conclude that the results are experimental evidence that we are 100% in a gravitational field, and we are NOT accelerating as UA suggests. So if gravity exist then the Earth cannot be flat and that it must be round, and all objects on the surface are accelerating towards the centre of the round Earth due to gravity which is the curvature of spacetime.
 

 This was demonstrated in the Pound-Rebka experiment back in the 1960's where photons were dropped from a height of 22.6 m towards the surface of the Earth and they detected a blueshift (z) of    and the formula is given by: 

How does one "drop" a photon?

Photon 1 experiences 1g for a fraction of a second.

Photon 99^9999 experiences 1g for a fraction of a second.

What makes you think that photon 99^9999 knows what photon 1 did, and why should that have any bearing? As far as it knows the Earth started accelerating just moments before.

Photon 1 experiences 1g for a fraction of a second.

Photons do not have mass nor do they experience time. 

When you consider an experiment like this you need to consider what reference frame you are having the acceleration be constant in, as well as all the relativistic corrections.

Having the acceleration being constant for an outside observer is quite different to having it being constant for an observer in the accelerating frame.
If it is constant outside the frame, then given enough time the object would be travelling faster than the speed of light, and to an observer in the frame it would appear to continually increase due to the relativistic influences (like time dilation)

If it is constant to an observer inside the frame, then the speed of light is never exceeded, and to the outside observer the rate of acceleration appears to slow down.


If you read the link you provided you see they are ignoring all those relativistic corrections.

In order for that equation to actually hold, you need some absolute t=0 to start at.
But there is no reason to pick any value of t over any other.

Say you pick some arbitrary time as t=0.
After any given time, you can simply choose that to be t=0, by choosing the inertial reference frame where at that time the object is at rest.
That means there cannot be any time dependence.

The biggest problem is the Flat Earthers who push the Equivalence principle don't really understand it.

They think it's some magic 'law' that means it's impossible to prove if you are on a round planet with gravity or a flat one accelerating.

THIS IS WRONG.

The Equivalence principle is only valid for small spaces.  That's why an elevator is used as an example.

On larger scales you CAN tell the difference between the two. Tidal forces is one example of an effect that lets you tell the difference.

The Wiki puts some heavy emphasis on EP and rests a large amount of their 'proof' on it but it's fatally flawed.  We can indeed device experiments to tell the difference, we just can't easily do it in a small box. But we don't live in a small box, at least non flat earthers don't.

The entire concept is wrong.

The biggest problem is the Flat Earthers who push the Equivalence principle don't really understand it.

They think it's some magic 'law' that means it's impossible to prove if you are on a round planet with gravity or a flat one accelerating.

THIS IS WRONG.

The Equivalence principle is only valid for small spaces.  That's why an elevator is used as an example.

On larger scales you CAN tell the difference between the two. Tidal forces is one example of an effect that lets you tell the difference.

The Wiki puts some heavy emphasis on EP and rests a large amount of their 'proof' on it but it's fatally flawed.  We can indeed device experiments to tell the difference, we just can't easily do it in a small box. But we don't live in a small box, at least non flat earthers don't.

The entire concept is wrong.

Yet you cite nothing at all, and no experiments, for this assertion.

Quote from: JJA on July 23, 2020, 04:43:13 AM

The biggest problem is the Flat Earthers who push the Equivalence principle don't really understand it.

They think it's some magic 'law' that means it's impossible to prove if you are on a round planet with gravity or a flat one accelerating.

THIS IS WRONG.

The Equivalence principle is only valid for small spaces.  That's why an elevator is used as an example.

On larger scales you CAN tell the difference between the two. Tidal forces is one example of an effect that lets you tell the difference.

The Wiki puts some heavy emphasis on EP and rests a large amount of their 'proof' on it but it's fatally flawed.  We can indeed device experiments to tell the difference, we just can't easily do it in a small box. But we don't live in a small box, at least non flat earthers don't.

The entire concept is wrong.

Yet you cite nothing at all, and no experiments, for this assertion.

You do love your citations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

"An observer in a windowless room cannot distinguish between being on the surface of the Earth, and being in a spaceship in deep space accelerating at 1g. This is not strictly true, because massive bodies give rise to tidal effects (caused by variations in the strength and direction of the gravitational field) which are absent from an accelerating spaceship in deep space. The room, therefore, should be small enough that tidal effects can be neglected."

Tidal effects would let you distinguish between being on a planet with gravity, and an accelerating disk unless your room was so small your instrumnets couldn't detect it.

That's why the principle states you need to be in a SMALL space. It's not saying it's impossible to tell, just that in a specific set of circumstances you can't. In the real world of course, we can.

Just read any in-depth discussion and you will see that the Equivalence principle is limited.

https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.4962774

"Strictly speaking, when the gravitational field is non-uniform (like Earth’s), the equivalence principle holds only for experiments in elevators that are small enough and that take place over a short enough period of time"

https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/einsteins-experimental-elevator/

"He formulated this insight in what is known as the “equivalence principle,” which asserts that uniform acceleration is equivalent to the presence of a homogenous, or uniform, gravitational field. Now, of course, since the Earth is spherical, its gravitational field is not, strictly speaking, homogenous or uniform, because its lines of gravitational force diverge. But the equivalence principle still holds for reasonably small regions of space where the divergence is negligible."

https://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/equivalence-principle

"All objects fall the same way under the influence of gravity; therefore, locally, one cannot tell the difference between an accelerated frame and an unaccelerated frame. Consider the famous example of a person in a falling elevator. The person floats in the middle of an elevator that is falling down a shaft. Locally, that is during any sufficiently small amount of time or over a sufficiently small space, the person falling in the elevator can make no distinction between being in the falling elevator or being in completely empty space, where there is no gravity."

The Equivalence principle can't prevent you from determining the difference between globe and flat Earth. The planet is MUCH bigger than a small elevator, and another restriction is you are not allowed to look outside the elevator. In reality we can.

As far as I could see, the Equivalence principle was used by proponents of UA.
But the main problem with UA is the lack of uniformity of such acceleration.

Let's take Clemmons, NC for example:
The town is at 36^oN, 80.4^oW, at the elevation of 260 m.

The acceleration at 261 m above sea level is 9.798191 m/s².
The acceleration at 10261 m above sea level is 9.766602 m/s².
How could the same ground point accelerate at two different rates towards two points at different altitudes?

The Equivalence principle can't help here.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 23, 2020, 03:37:40 PM

Quote from: JJA on July 23, 2020, 04:43:13 AM

The biggest problem is the Flat Earthers who push the Equivalence principle don't really understand it.

They think it's some magic 'law' that means it's impossible to prove if you are on a round planet with gravity or a flat one accelerating.

THIS IS WRONG.

The Equivalence principle is only valid for small spaces.  That's why an elevator is used as an example.

On larger scales you CAN tell the difference between the two. Tidal forces is one example of an effect that lets you tell the difference.

The Wiki puts some heavy emphasis on EP and rests a large amount of their 'proof' on it but it's fatally flawed.  We can indeed device experiments to tell the difference, we just can't easily do it in a small box. But we don't live in a small box, at least non flat earthers don't.

The entire concept is wrong.

Yet you cite nothing at all, and no experiments, for this assertion.

You do love your citations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

"An observer in a windowless room cannot distinguish between being on the surface of the Earth, and being in a spaceship in deep space accelerating at 1g. This is not strictly true, because massive bodies give rise to tidal effects (caused by variations in the strength and direction of the gravitational field) which are absent from an accelerating spaceship in deep space. The room, therefore, should be small enough that tidal effects can be neglected."

Tidal effects would let you distinguish between being on a planet with gravity, and an accelerating disk unless your room was so small your instrumnets couldn't detect it.

That's why the principle states you need to be in a SMALL space. It's not saying it's impossible to tell, just that in a specific set of circumstances you can't. In the real world of course, we can.

Just read any in-depth discussion and you will see that the Equivalence principle is limited.

https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.4962774

"Strictly speaking, when the gravitational field is non-uniform (like Earth’s), the equivalence principle holds only for experiments in elevators that are small enough and that take place over a short enough period of time"

https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/einsteins-experimental-elevator/

"He formulated this insight in what is known as the “equivalence principle,” which asserts that uniform acceleration is equivalent to the presence of a homogenous, or uniform, gravitational field. Now, of course, since the Earth is spherical, its gravitational field is not, strictly speaking, homogenous or uniform, because its lines of gravitational force diverge. But the equivalence principle still holds for reasonably small regions of space where the divergence is negligible."

https://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/equivalence-principle

"All objects fall the same way under the influence of gravity; therefore, locally, one cannot tell the difference between an accelerated frame and an unaccelerated frame. Consider the famous example of a person in a falling elevator. The person floats in the middle of an elevator that is falling down a shaft. Locally, that is during any sufficiently small amount of time or over a sufficiently small space, the person falling in the elevator can make no distinction between being in the falling elevator or being in completely empty space, where there is no gravity."

The Equivalence principle can't prevent you from determining the difference between globe and flat Earth. The planet is MUCH bigger than a small elevator, and another restriction is you are not allowed to look outside the elevator. In reality we can.

That is merely what is thought about the nature of gravity. You have posted zero experimental evidence.

You need EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE for that to be true.

As far as I could see, the Equivalence principle was used by proponents of UA.
But the main problem with UA is the lack of uniformity of such acceleration.

Let's take Clemmons, NC for example:
The town is at 36^oN, 80.4^oW, at the elevation of 260 m.

The acceleration at 261 m above sea level is 9.798191 m/s².
The acceleration at 10261 m above sea level is 9.766602 m/s².
How could the same ground point accelerate at two different rates towards two points at different altitudes?

The Equivalence principle can't help here.

What experiment are you referring to? That could just be the calculated number rather than anything that was derived experimentally.

Gravity Variations by Latitude has an article in the tfes wiki. Those are not robust or controlled experiments, and the scales are exposed to the atmpsphere. I would suggest addressing the article rather than stating random things. Also see the article on Gravimeters.

You would need to demonstrate that those experiments are controlled and valid and interpreted correctly for this evidence to be valid.

There is actually much more evidence that the EP has been verified at various elevations and situations, including at different latitudes if we use clocks rather than scales. Again, see the articles on the tfes wiki.

Quote from: JJA on July 23, 2020, 05:01:38 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 23, 2020, 03:37:40 PM

Quote from: JJA on July 23, 2020, 04:43:13 AM

The biggest problem is the Flat Earthers who push the Equivalence principle don't really understand it.

They think it's some magic 'law' that means it's impossible to prove if you are on a round planet with gravity or a flat one accelerating.

THIS IS WRONG.


The Equivalence principle is only valid for small spaces.  That's why an elevator is used as an example.

On larger scales you CAN tell the difference between the two. Tidal forces is one example of an effect that lets you tell the difference.

The Wiki puts some heavy emphasis on EP and rests a large amount of their 'proof' on it but it's fatally flawed.  We can indeed device experiments to tell the difference, we just can't easily do it in a small box. But we don't live in a small box, at least non flat earthers don't.

The entire concept is wrong.

Yet you cite nothing at all, and no experiments, for this assertion.

You do love your citations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

"An observer in a windowless room cannot distinguish between being on the surface of the Earth, and being in a spaceship in deep space accelerating at 1g. This is not strictly true, because massive bodies give rise to tidal effects (caused by variations in the strength and direction of the gravitational field) which are absent from an accelerating spaceship in deep space. The room, therefore, should be small enough that tidal effects can be neglected."

Tidal effects would let you distinguish between being on a planet with gravity, and an accelerating disk unless your room was so small your instrumnets couldn't detect it.

That's why the principle states you need to be in a SMALL space. It's not saying it's impossible to tell, just that in a specific set of circumstances you can't. In the real world of course, we can.

Just read any in-depth discussion and you will see that the Equivalence principle is limited.

https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.4962774

"Strictly speaking, when the gravitational field is non-uniform (like Earth’s), the equivalence principle holds only for experiments in elevators that are small enough and that take place over a short enough period of time"

https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/einsteins-experimental-elevator/

"He formulated this insight in what is known as the “equivalence principle,” which asserts that uniform acceleration is equivalent to the presence of a homogenous, or uniform, gravitational field. Now, of course, since the Earth is spherical, its gravitational field is not, strictly speaking, homogenous or uniform, because its lines of gravitational force diverge. But the equivalence principle still holds for reasonably small regions of space where the divergence is negligible."

https://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/equivalence-principle

"All objects fall the same way under the influence of gravity; therefore, locally, one cannot tell the difference between an accelerated frame and an unaccelerated frame. Consider the famous example of a person in a falling elevator. The person floats in the middle of an elevator that is falling down a shaft. Locally, that is during any sufficiently small amount of time or over a sufficiently small space, the person falling in the elevator can make no distinction between being in the falling elevator or being in completely empty space, where there is no gravity."

The Equivalence principle can't prevent you from determining the difference between globe and flat Earth. The planet is MUCH bigger than a small elevator, and another restriction is you are not allowed to look outside the elevator. In reality we can.

That is merely what is thought about the nature of gravity. You have posted zero experimental evidence.

You need EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE for that to be true.

Quote from: Macarios on July 23, 2020, 09:06:11 PM

As far as I could see, the Equivalence principle was used by proponents of UA.
But the main problem with UA is the lack of uniformity of such acceleration.

Let's take Clemmons, NC for example:
The town is at 36^oN, 80.4^oW, at the elevation of 260 m.

The acceleration at 261 m above sea level is 9.798191 m/s².
The acceleration at 10261 m above sea level is 9.766602 m/s².
How could the same ground point accelerate at two different rates towards two points at different altitudes?

The Equivalence principle can't help here.

What experiment are you referring to? That could just be the calculated number rather than anything that was derived experimentally.

Gravity Variations by Latitude has an article in the tfes wiki. Those are not robust or controlled experiments, and the scales are exposed to the atmpsphere. I would suggest addressing the article rather than stating random things. Also see the article on Gravimeters.

You would need to demonstrate that those experiments are controlled and valid and interpreted correctly for this evidence to be valid.

There is actually much more evidence that the EP has been verified at various elevations and situations, including at different latitudes if we use clocks rather than scales. Again, see the articles on the tfes wiki.

How about The travels of
kern the gnome, for an experiment

Can you explain his wight during his travels.
You should have seen this many times there are links elsewhere on this form.

Quote from: JJA on July 23, 2020, 05:01:38 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 23, 2020, 03:37:40 PM

Quote from: JJA on July 23, 2020, 04:43:13 AM

The biggest problem is the Flat Earthers who push the Equivalence principle don't really understand it.

They think it's some magic 'law' that means it's impossible to prove if you are on a round planet with gravity or a flat one accelerating.

THIS IS WRONG.

The Equivalence principle is only valid for small spaces.  That's why an elevator is used as an example.

On larger scales you CAN tell the difference between the two. Tidal forces is one example of an effect that lets you tell the difference.

The Wiki puts some heavy emphasis on EP and rests a large amount of their 'proof' on it but it's fatally flawed.  We can indeed device experiments to tell the difference, we just can't easily do it in a small box. But we don't live in a small box, at least non flat earthers don't.

The entire concept is wrong.

Yet you cite nothing at all, and no experiments, for this assertion.

You do love your citations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

"An observer in a windowless room cannot distinguish between being on the surface of the Earth, and being in a spaceship in deep space accelerating at 1g. This is not strictly true, because massive bodies give rise to tidal effects (caused by variations in the strength and direction of the gravitational field) which are absent from an accelerating spaceship in deep space. The room, therefore, should be small enough that tidal effects can be neglected."

Tidal effects would let you distinguish between being on a planet with gravity, and an accelerating disk unless your room was so small your instrumnets couldn't detect it.

That's why the principle states you need to be in a SMALL space. It's not saying it's impossible to tell, just that in a specific set of circumstances you can't. In the real world of course, we can.

Just read any in-depth discussion and you will see that the Equivalence principle is limited.

https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.4962774

"Strictly speaking, when the gravitational field is non-uniform (like Earth’s), the equivalence principle holds only for experiments in elevators that are small enough and that take place over a short enough period of time"

https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/einsteins-experimental-elevator/

"He formulated this insight in what is known as the “equivalence principle,” which asserts that uniform acceleration is equivalent to the presence of a homogenous, or uniform, gravitational field. Now, of course, since the Earth is spherical, its gravitational field is not, strictly speaking, homogenous or uniform, because its lines of gravitational force diverge. But the equivalence principle still holds for reasonably small regions of space where the divergence is negligible."

https://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/equivalence-principle

"All objects fall the same way under the influence of gravity; therefore, locally, one cannot tell the difference between an accelerated frame and an unaccelerated frame. Consider the famous example of a person in a falling elevator. The person floats in the middle of an elevator that is falling down a shaft. Locally, that is during any sufficiently small amount of time or over a sufficiently small space, the person falling in the elevator can make no distinction between being in the falling elevator or being in completely empty space, where there is no gravity."

The Equivalence principle can't prevent you from determining the difference between globe and flat Earth. The planet is MUCH bigger than a small elevator, and another restriction is you are not allowed to look outside the elevator. In reality we can.

That is merely what is thought about the nature of gravity. You have posted zero experimental evidence.

You need EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE for that to be true.

Quote from: Macarios on July 23, 2020, 09:06:11 PM

As far as I could see, the Equivalence principle was used by proponents of UA.
But the main problem with UA is the lack of uniformity of such acceleration.

Let's take Clemmons, NC for example:
The town is at 36^oN, 80.4^oW, at the elevation of 260 m.

The acceleration at 261 m above sea level is 9.798191 m/s².
The acceleration at 10261 m above sea level is 9.766602 m/s².
How could the same ground point accelerate at two different rates towards two points at different altitudes?

The Equivalence principle can't help here.

What experiment are you referring to? That could just be the calculated number rather than anything that was derived experimentally.

Gravity Variations by Latitude has an article in the tfes wiki. Those are not robust or controlled experiments, and the scales are exposed to the atmpsphere. I would suggest addressing the article rather than stating random things. Also see the article on Gravimeters.

You would need to demonstrate that those experiments are controlled and valid and interpreted correctly for this evidence to be valid.

There is actually much more evidence that the EP has been verified at various elevations and situations, including at different latitudes if we use clocks rather than scales. Again, see the articles on the tfes wiki.

Actually the onus is on you. Geodesy and gravimetry is a well founded and highly relied upon science that is applied practically, in many endeavors and industry. It is up to you to demonstrate, through controlled experimentation, where it is wrong.

What controlled experiments have you or others performed, that show a variance in what the rest of the scientific community has acknowledged, is wrong?

Quote from: JJA on July 23, 2020, 05:01:38 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 23, 2020, 03:37:40 PM

Quote from: JJA on July 23, 2020, 04:43:13 AM

The biggest problem is the Flat Earthers who push the Equivalence principle don't really understand it.

They think it's some magic 'law' that means it's impossible to prove if you are on a round planet with gravity or a flat one accelerating.

THIS IS WRONG.

The Equivalence principle is only valid for small spaces.  That's why an elevator is used as an example.

On larger scales you CAN tell the difference between the two. Tidal forces is one example of an effect that lets you tell the difference.

The Wiki puts some heavy emphasis on EP and rests a large amount of their 'proof' on it but it's fatally flawed.  We can indeed device experiments to tell the difference, we just can't easily do it in a small box. But we don't live in a small box, at least non flat earthers don't.

The entire concept is wrong.

Yet you cite nothing at all, and no experiments, for this assertion.

You do love your citations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

"An observer in a windowless room cannot distinguish between being on the surface of the Earth, and being in a spaceship in deep space accelerating at 1g. This is not strictly true, because massive bodies give rise to tidal effects (caused by variations in the strength and direction of the gravitational field) which are absent from an accelerating spaceship in deep space. The room, therefore, should be small enough that tidal effects can be neglected."

Tidal effects would let you distinguish between being on a planet with gravity, and an accelerating disk unless your room was so small your instrumnets couldn't detect it.

That's why the principle states you need to be in a SMALL space. It's not saying it's impossible to tell, just that in a specific set of circumstances you can't. In the real world of course, we can.

Just read any in-depth discussion and you will see that the Equivalence principle is limited.

https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.4962774

"Strictly speaking, when the gravitational field is non-uniform (like Earth’s), the equivalence principle holds only for experiments in elevators that are small enough and that take place over a short enough period of time"

https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/einsteins-experimental-elevator/

"He formulated this insight in what is known as the “equivalence principle,” which asserts that uniform acceleration is equivalent to the presence of a homogenous, or uniform, gravitational field. Now, of course, since the Earth is spherical, its gravitational field is not, strictly speaking, homogenous or uniform, because its lines of gravitational force diverge. But the equivalence principle still holds for reasonably small regions of space where the divergence is negligible."

https://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/equivalence-principle

"All objects fall the same way under the influence of gravity; therefore, locally, one cannot tell the difference between an accelerated frame and an unaccelerated frame. Consider the famous example of a person in a falling elevator. The person floats in the middle of an elevator that is falling down a shaft. Locally, that is during any sufficiently small amount of time or over a sufficiently small space, the person falling in the elevator can make no distinction between being in the falling elevator or being in completely empty space, where there is no gravity."

The Equivalence principle can't prevent you from determining the difference between globe and flat Earth. The planet is MUCH bigger than a small elevator, and another restriction is you are not allowed to look outside the elevator. In reality we can.

That is merely what is thought about the nature of gravity. You have posted zero experimental evidence.

You need EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE for that to be true.

No I don't.  This is about your misrepresentation of the Equivalence Principle and YOU trying to use it as evidence that your Universal Acceleration could be true.

You are claiming that the Equivalence Principle means we can't tell the difference, but a more careful reading of it shows that yes we can.  If you want to make up your own Tom Bishop's Equivalence Principle and use that, then fine.  But if you are going to claim accepted theories back you up, you can't turn around and suddenly start demanding EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE when shown you are using it wrong.

We are talking about your claims here, you are the one bringing in the Equivalence Principle and claiming it means something it does not.

I'm sorry if you based a large amount of your house of cards on thinking the Equivalence Principle means nobody can disprove it, but you're wrong, and all my references showed that.

Are you going to at least admit that the Equivalence Principle does not hold in large spaces like a planet, be it round or flat?