Would the one accelerating please stand up?

[PeterDonis]

In the elevator the accelerometer measures inertia. At Earth the situation looks to be reversed, but the magnitude of the reading is the same.

On Earth the accelerometer shows a reading of proper acceleration reading. The situation on the elevator appears to be reversed, but the magnitude of the reading of proper acceleration is the same.

Why do you say the situation "looks to be reversed"? In both cases, the accelerometer shows the same reading: 1 g acceleration upward.

 

[Dale]

I say

Personal opinions are not valid sources for this site. I will send a detailed response shortly.

 

[Dale]

In the elevator the accelerometer measures inertia.

No, in all situations a functioning accelerometer measures proper acceleration. Please stop just blatantly making stuff up and learn the standard theory.

Is that not “relative inertia”? ... Is that not “relative proper acceleration”?

Not in any standard source I have ever read. Please stop making stuff up and use the standard terminology.

On Earth the accelerometer shows a reading of proper acceleration reading.

It always shows the proper acceleration.

The situation on the elevator appears to be reversed, but the magnitude of the reading of proper acceleration is the same.

That is because the proper acceleration is the same.

You say the field does not exist.

I never said that. I said that there are three possible things (curvature tensor, metric, or Christoffel symbols) that the term "gravitational field" might refer to, so it is inviting confusion to use the term "gravitational field" and it is better to learn and use the standard terminology.

Einstein does more that simple say that the man in the chest will come to the conclusion that he is in a gravitational field. He explicitly says in (Relativity, A. Einstein, pg. 69)

…A gravitational field exists for the man in the chest, despite the fact that there was no such field for the co-ordinate system first chosen. Now we might easily suppose that the existence of a gravitational field is always only an apparent one…

I say the field exists as per Einstein, QM, and simple logic. I have seen no evidence here to the contrary.

And based on his description of the properties of the gravitational field, which of the three things I mention above do you think he meant? How can you have a meaningful opinion on the topic or follow the logic or evaluate the evidence if you don't even know what the words mean?