tharkun wrote:My apologies, I must have misunderstood the post. I thought you were arguing that gravity was not an acceleration but a force. Forces and accelerations are measured in different units and some argue that gravity is a force rather than an acceleration.
Err, I am arguing that gravity is a force. g is not gravity. g is the acceleration due to gravity. An acceleration is due to a force - in this case the effect that produces the force is called gravity - so effectively, the force is gravity. The acceleration is most certainly not gravity, it is the acceleration due to the force that is gravity.
tharkun wrote:And how do you know that it is “opposite the physical process”? There is no way you could possibly know this, only assume it.
Fair point, except that....
tharkun wrote:You have experimentally falsified every other possible mechanism for gravity?
No, but there are no other possible mechanisms....are there?, If there are other possible mechanisms that you know of, could you would you, please list them.
tharkun wrote:How does a ‘random particle field’ produce attraction?
The method of material particle field gravity is well established - search on Nicolas Fatio. Fatio wasn't quite correct, but the principle is sound. Mechanical "attraction" is a physical impossibility - gravity is a push.
tharkun wrote:sitting on the rocket pad with 1g pulling down
That should be pushing down. Pulling would be a physical impossibility.
tharkun wrote:both rely on structural rigidity of the ship to convey the force by way of the sub-atomic particles.
No, gravity acts on mass, not objects. Gravity acts on physical entities with mass - the only physical entities with mass in the rocket-ship are protons, neutrons and electrons. Gravity does not know that they have combined in atomic/molecular structures to form a spaceship - it can only act on the mass particles themselves. As you say F=ma and the F, the force that is gravity, causes m, the mass, to accelerate. F is proportional to the mass, so that all masses accelerate at the same rate - you may confirm this by taking a hammer and a feather to the Moon, where unaffected by atmosphere, they accelerate at the same rate.
F comes from F=GMM/r2. More correctly that equation should be F = M1√G . M2√G / r2.
Of course, the structural integrity of the ship is a function of the gravity and charge interactions between the sub-atomic particles, but nevertheless, they are all also subject to the gravitational interactions with other masses, such as Earth.
tharkun wrote:Gravity is an acceleration that causes forces, but is not a force itself.
An acceleration that causes a force, um, err? Collision, deceleration on one object and acceleration of the object is force! Mass with velocity and a second mass, with or without velocity, in collision, is required to generate force. Acceleration is a necessary component of the process, but is not a pre-requisite. In fact acceleration can ONLY be caused by the deceleration of another object and a transfer of momentum through collision. Force is the process by which objects are decelerated and accelerated. Mechanics of motion are quite unambiguous on this point - an accelerating object can only be accelerating is a force is being applied - acceleration is not the cause of the force. It could be argued that force is caused by deceleration through collision; semantics allows for it, but there is no case for saying that acceleration causes force, since force is the pre-requisite for acceleration.
tharkun wrote:Newton’s Gravitational equation is a unified field equation and doesn’t define solo gravity (which is why it looks so much like the Coulomb equation – both contain charge and gravity combined).
Agreed, but no doubt with some differences of detail.
tharkun wrote:Since accelerations are dependent only on distances, and gravity is an acceleration, gravity must also only be dependent on distances. The mass applies to the density of the charge field and not gravity.
A physically occurring acceleration is dependent on force and mass, F=ma, or have you changed your mind. Distance combines with time to calculate an acceleration via observation of motion, but the motion must have had a cause, and acceleration is defined as a change of motion over a duration. The only possible cause for a change of motion is force.
tharkun wrote:The Equivalence Principle is correct as Einstein conceived it; there is no difference between a dynamic 1g acceleration up or a static 1g acceleration down.
Again, this assumption is based on gravity not having a physical cause. Since all effects have a cause (including acceleration), then we must assume that the principle of equivalence is not valid.