Yes, if you are in freefall.
Define freefall please it will help you see the problem you just introduced
Perhaps you may care to review Newtons second law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion).
Consistent with the first law, the time derivative of the momentum is non-zero when the momentum changes direction, even if there is no change in its magnitude; such is the case with uniform circular motion. The relationship also implies the conservation of momentum: when the net force on the body is zero, the momentum of the body is constant. Any net force is equal to the rate of change of the momentum.
So any suggestions how we should reconcile these two concepts?
So far you have freefall = something that has acceleration yet measures zero net force and yet Newtons second law states "net force on the body is zero, the momentum of the body is constant"
Those two statements are very inconsistent ????????????
You are on the right track but need some better hand waving
Hmm lets think about a hint for you: (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravimeter) or perhaps google bucket argument
basic physics math tells me that I and my accelerometer are accelerating , and that there is no need
to include any linear acceleration or any fictional forces to determine that I am accelerating around the planet.
Show me the maths ... I sense poor Newtons motion laws going down
Without making fun of you that is why centripetal acceleration is described as a pseudo force or a fictitious force ... google it.
If it helps (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force) and it's one way out of Bill G's predicament.
It's probably different in Paul physics but that is how it is in classical physics because we need to do a patch job to allow all the laws to coexist. If you make the centripetal acceleration real you will violate Newtons laws of motion and all hell breaks loose with your physics.
It will be most interesting to see how both of you tackle resolving this.
