Bill G please look .... after your zero answer ... I said.
Now lets see if you can extend that with a bit more intelligence than Paul. Assuming you and the accelerometer are in the same reference frame, can you be accelerating if the accelerometer measures zero?
I was agreeing with you and simply wanted to extend the discussion about the zero ... and now you give us the fact that you will get a zero on two different frameworks for two different reasons ... TADA.
Apparently in trying to get you to clarify that fact which you only now volunteered you saw it as being smart. I actually alienated Paul with that comment. Really I meant the word logic rather than intelligence but I missed the translation, and Paul had far more complain about than you. He gave me a spray about it so I didn't bother addressing.
I asked you to define "free fall" because to describe it between the two frameworks is rather different isn't it. I was not being smart or cute with it.
I am happy just working with what you guys know, and am happy not insisting on answers because every physics framework is ultimately broken and I certainly can't give you a "right answer". I will give you a guarantee I will never insist you are wrong unless you violate the framework you are working in, or try and take the framework somewhere it breaks.
I now get that you thought I was saying the answer wasn't zero, when I was really looking for more about the framework hence the question rather than an answer.
We have multiple parties in these discussions, so if something comes across like above please just pull me up and ask what am I really asking. I try to consistently answer any serious question asked to me, although some test my patience with stupid questions they don't want answered. Often I am trying to frame one answer in reference to include the other party. You and Paul appear to be on vastly different frameworks, he really doesn't want fictional forces and comparing answers is therefore tricky.
