If you want gravity, you use centrifuges. Not really a problem.

And this gives you the benefit of applying exactly the force you want. I'm no materials scientist, but I imagine this could allow for some potential gains in efficiency/quality/whatever.

> Not really a problem.

Your gravity vector will have to be uniform, otherwise your crustal will turned curved.

Your centrifuge will have to be either very large, or you will have to find out how to do that without convetion

is this kind of simulated gravity sufficient for the convection processes described?

I think Einstein might have something to say about that one.

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

Linear acceleration is equivalent to gravity. Spinning is not; it introduces the Coriolis psuedo-force or however you prefer to look at it, which allows it to be distinguished from gravity.

I concede the point, but counter with the fact that completely flat gravitational fields are implausible, so you could technically distinguish between linear acceleration (which has the same acceleration everywhere) and acceleration due to gravity (which doesn't, and hence generates a tide).

The effect on a stationary point sized object is equivalent in all three cases. When your object moves then the spinning artificial gravity can be distinguished. When your object is no longer point sized then both gravity and spinning fake gravity can be distinguished from linear acceleration fake gravity.

I concede you have out-pedantic'd me. :)

Not sure how this supports or refutes GP claim ...

EDIT I mean - we’re talking about convection right? Which I understand to involve circulation of air currents ... does your link have anything on this topic? I guess with a large enough centrifuge there might be no difference but it was unclear whether what was being referred to was large habitable centrifuges or the type more commonly found in labs ...