can you name a force that cannot be measured?
All of those forces can only be measured by the person on that reference frame they can't be measured and make no sense to someone not on that frame. To a static person the force looks like it comes out from some point in space and disappears off at infinity with a whole pile of other infinities along the way.
That was the issue Bill G was having, Gravity can only be measured via a reference to mass. The moment we put that mass into what Bill G referred to as free fall it disappears as it's a non inertial reference frame, Newtons laws implode.
The problem is Newtons laws (classic physics lovelies) are only valid in inertial frames of reference ... that is ones
not accelerating. In accelerating frames, like your rotating one, or Bill G's "free fall" you have to try and patch the laws if you want to keep them. It doesn't seem to worry you that you can't bring the forces back to static reference frame and in that regard
your physics looks more and more like relativity which apparently you think is wrong and gave Einstein a spray.
In your post above you almost appear to be arguing for relativity and against classical physics and it's universal reference frame?
You can't have Newton's laws and relativity forces the two are incompatible that is what I beat Bill G over the head with.
So again I ask the question what framework are you using?
Lets give you the general definition of relativity physics ....
don't confuse this with GR and Einstein(
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity)
That is, physical laws are the same in all reference frames.
Physics in non-inertial reference frames was historically treated by a coordinate transformation, first, to an inertial reference frame, performing the necessary calculations therein, and using another to return to the non-inertial reference frame. In most such situations, the same laws of physics can be used if certain predictable fictitious forces are added into consideration; an example is a uniformly rotating reference frame, which can be treated as an inertial reference frame if one adds a fictitious centrifugal force and Coriolis force into consideration.
So do you believe in relativity as described above and not classical physics? It has to be one or the other you can't have both.
There are many versions of relativity yet layman seem to think all of them are Einsteins versions.
Lets try one of the simpler versions of relativity, so I am going to give you Galilean relativity to look at which as you will see dates back to 1632
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invarianceIs that close to what you want, its a sort of fusion between Newtonian physics and relativity and is probably the closest thing to classical physics with relativity mixed in.
