A point on the Earth is orbiting the sun, orbiting the center of the milky way, rotating, and standing on the surface means you are not in free-fall.
All of these things mean that a location on the Earth is not an inertial reference frame.
Actually, only the last one means you are not in free-fall. An orbit is a free-fall.
I think a lot of this argument is about semantics.
It is not. The point, which has apparently been missed by all involved, is that a frame of reference using a point on the Earth's surface as a fixed point approximates a non-inertial frame of reference precisely as well in FET as in RET. In both cases, there is a proper acceleration of 9.8 m s
-2.
Oh dear, well it looks like this discussion has reached an impasse. Not sure where all the anger is coming from.
There is no anger, but I agree we seem to have reached an impasse, as you continue trying to "explain" incorrect physics to me rather than respond to my points. Teaching other people generally will not get you anywhere if they do not recognise you as more knowledgeable than they are.
“The Earth is not a frame of reference.”
Yeah...this stuff is covered in like the first week of physics I. The earth is taken as a reference frame all the time. Look in any physics text. Literally ANY.
Look, this is not correct, and I have studied physics at university level. The primary reason the Earth cannot be a frame of reference is that, particularly in RET, different parts of the Earth are moving at different velocities as it rotates. That is, different places on Earth are in
different frames of reference, even in Newtonian physics.
Now, it is common in introductory physics textbooks to use
one fixed point somewhere on the Earth's surface to define a frame of reference. This is very, very far from using the Earth itself as a frame of reference, which simply makes no sense at all.
The reason this is significant in this particular discussion is that it is possible in RET to select a point on the Earth—namely, its centre of mass—to define an inertial frame of reference, given modelling assumptions that ignore external forces such as the solar wind and meteor showers. But unless you have access to a clock measuring muon decay times located in the inner core, this is entirely irrelevant.
So it is clear that there is misunderstanding of the basics, yet you are accusing me of being wrong about them - and being rather rude about it too.
At the risk of devolving this discussion into personal attacks, might I point out that you have been accusing me of not understanding basics as well, even though your grasp of them is very obviously lacking? I don't appreciate the double standard of being called rude for returning the courtesy.
I would appreciate it if we could focus on the subject matter rather than you avoiding responding to my points by just telling me I don't understand basics.