The original comment correctly pointed out that you can make fictitious forces vanish by selecting a suitable frame of reference (which will not be a inertial frame of reference), he incorrectly stated that you can do the same with gravitational forces which you can not because they will at best vanish locally.
The response to my fist comment I could not fully understand but the last part of it sounds to me like it implied that a frame of reference only comprises a single point in space which of course is not true.
All in all my objection was the you can not treat gravity like fictitious forces which is an understandable and easy to make mistake if you base your reasoning on the simple elevator gedankenexperiment. I have absolutely no objections to the way the equivalence principle is introduced to people. So I am not really sure what we are arguing about, it seems to me that we - at least mostly - agree on the matter.
> And you don't have to leave your frame of reference to see a difference between acceleration and gravity, they are distinguishable in any frame of reference.
You're clearly presenting an idealized situation, which is fine. You've chosen a non-idealized (or less idealized) gravitational field, which is also fine. But the convention when talking about this particular subject is to also idealize gravity and take it as being the same everywhere. If somebody reads this statement with the usual definition of gravity, they might get the wrong idea.
All it needs is some signal that the gravity you're using is different (less symmetric) than usual. It is an interesting idea, I'm just saying maybe present it a little differently so people like me don't get confused.
The response to my fist comment I could not fully understand but the last part of it sounds to me like it implied that a frame of reference only comprises a single point in space which of course is not true.
All in all my objection was the you can not treat gravity like fictitious forces which is an understandable and easy to make mistake if you base your reasoning on the simple elevator gedankenexperiment. I have absolutely no objections to the way the equivalence principle is introduced to people. So I am not really sure what we are arguing about, it seems to me that we - at least mostly - agree on the matter.