> The concept "real centrifugal force" has no place in either scheme. It
> adopts the Newtonian word "force", but violates the Newtonian concept
> "force". It is born of a subconscious desire to invoke a real force to
> account for any and all accelerations - observed by any and all
observers.
The centrifugal field is equally as real as the
gravitational field.
If your point is that neither of these is properly
a "force" field but rather an acceleration field,
then I agree. It's a force per unit mass, i.e. an
acceleration.
If you're going to say that centrifigual force doesn't
exist then consistency requires saying that gravitational
force doesn't exist.
If you choose to confine your attention to frames that
are accelerated in one direction (gravity) but not
accelerated in another direction (centrifugity) then
that's your choice -- but it's just a choice. Don't
be surprised if others choose otherwise.
The three most-common choices for analyzing the
motion of an airplane in a turn are:
-- the freely-falling frame, which exhibits neither
gravity nor centrifugity;
-- the earth-bound frame: including gravity but
pretending to neglect the earth's rotation, and
truly not including the rotation of the airplane;
-- the frame comoving with the airplane, including
both gravity and centifugity.
You can choose whatever frame you like. That's your
choice. Don't tell me what frame to choose; that's
my choice.