Is Gravity really a force, like e.g. magnetism?

[CosmicGamer]

Are we just using different terms to describe the same thing?

Gravity is a distortion in the geometry of spacetime

to me, does not disprove "Gravity is a force that changes the motion of objects." I think they are both saying the same thing, no?

I'm not sure what the use of different terms is supposed to be proving?

What is the overall point in this discussion? Similarities between gravity and magnetism?

A magnet creates a magnetic field that exerts forces on magnetic particles.

Throw in the terms being using for gravity and I get: "A magnetic field causes a distortion in the geometry of spacetime". Is this not the case if it causes an object to move?

 

[simonh]

The question arrose as a tangential point in another thread that wasn't really about gravity or forces, so going into this amount of detail was off-topic for that thread.

If it's not a subject that interests you, that's fine.

Simon Hibbs

 

[CosmicGamer]

TIf it's not a subject that interests you, that's fine.Simon Hibbs

If it didn't interest me, I would just move on and not ask the question.

What is the overall point in this discussion? Similarities between gravity and magnetism?

Believe it or not, I'm trying to be helpful and figure out what you, as the OP and one of the main contributors, want out of this discussion so that I can direct my research and provide information on that.

Some posts are to get answers to questions.
In your first post to start this thread, the only question was in the title and there were no questions in the body of the post. I've asked a couple times for clarification of any specific questions you may want answered or information you are looking for.

Baring receiving details, I feel, perhaps in error?, that your post is one that is not a request for information but an appeal for ratification or approval of ones views from the community. Nothing wrong with this. You've been around these forums long enough that I felt you were not expecting a bunch of yes men blindly agreeing with you. I could be wrong.

I'm not inadequate at finding facts that can help either side of a debate. Sometimes I may even play devils advocate (takes a position they do not necessarily agree with) to help someone else think things through and make a stronger case for their position.

But again, from your posts I'm not sure what information I can research and provide at this point as I am unsure of the purpose of your posts. Perhaps this is due to my not being a science whiz and not understanding or misunderstanding your posts? I ask for clarification and input as to anything I post that is wrong.

What am I looking for from this? To learn and hopefully be helpful.

 

[asciitraveller]

On the topic of accelerometers seeing no force in free fall:

To understand this, you need to know how a very basic accelerometer works. An accelerometer consists of a spring, which is attached to the casing on one side, and to a heavy mass on the other side. If we try to move the casing, inertia will hold the mass in place and thus compress or extend the spring. If we record the extension of the spring, we can calculate the acceleration of the casing by applying the equations describing a harmonic oscillator. We call the whole device an accelerometer.

If the device is in free fall, both mass and case will accelerate by the same amount per time. Both will have the same velocity, and the spring won't be extended. Zero spring extension gives us an acceleration of zero meters per second squared.


Edit:
One more thing: If we use a large enough spring, we can measure effects of gravitation. Gravity follows a inverse square law, so if our spring is large enough and we put masses on either side, one of the masses will be accelerated more, because it is nearer to the center of the gravitational field than the other. The spring will extend, and we can measure something. This is what we call tidal forces.