You then took it and tried to show that I am so dumb that I can't say anything right.
No I know you aren't dumb I was checking you understood what was going on and that a free falling frame has two interpretations and I asked a question. You answered the question with a reference to "free fall" and I asked you to define it so you could clearly see a problem.
You like the good little classic physics boffin took the normal stance on the problem but none of your classic laws will hold in that frame and you can't create a valid proof.
As I said this goes all the way back to the Newtons bucket argument and there are no laws in classical physics that will allow you to resolve this. As per Mr mach I will always be able to find a frame in which I can ask accelerating/rotating in respect to what?
Newtons answer is take a frame not on the "free falling frame" and resolve from there and you will have to introduce gravity as a fictional force in that situation which is what I was trying to make you do. That is what the Newtonian framework says you have to do via Newtons first law. This harks to what I said way back if we go much further we will need to talk about fictional forces in classical physics.
I am assuming here you will not do what Paul did and get confused with the layman definition of the words "fictional forces" or "pseudo forces". It is a translation of Newtons choice of word to fix frame references in Principia Mathematica and what it means beyond that is conjecture.
Your answer is correct in THE CLASSICAL PHYSICS FRAMEWORK with gravity injected as a fictional force that can't be measured in a free falling frame. The extension of that is you can't use a gravimeter in a free falling frame if it is using the laws of classical physics to measure gravity. You accelerate such a device up/down in any way it will miss read. Your answers on that subject totally perplexed me but lets ignore that, I am not trying to upset you and it's a side issue.
Bill G you sort of claim you believe in GR but don't find your answer somewhat problematic or that you at least need to qualify it?
I asked the question "can you measure zero force and yet be accelerating?" because I know the answer to it needs a framework and was trying to get you guys to see that.
Bill G you said and still insist ... that you can measure zero force and yet be accelerating .... NO QUALIFICATION OFFERED.
It isn't the measuring zero I am asking you to look at BUT the accelerating bit ... you focused on the wrong bit.
MY FULL ANSWER: YES in classical frameworks and NO in relativistic frameworks and for someone with your intelligence it shouldn't be that hard to know why.
The problem boils down to should I trust the accelerometer or should I trust what is inferred by classical physics laws. I am pretty sure you know what GR does and we change to "proper acceleration".
When I ask questions rather than give an answer there is usually a good reason, and yes they are often loaded
Most of the time what you see as attacking you is me simply asking you to consider there is a different valid answer at least qualify your response. There are heaps of things in physics with multiple answers, we can't distinguish between unless you identify the assumptions.
I have asked repeatedly can we get what framework we are using for this discussion because there are many conflicting answers to this stuff. Paul appears to be using some form of relativistic framework (no fictional forces) and Bill G is using classic physics (fictional forces) and somehow I am supposed to relate discussion to you both.
