I mean force, and every serious scientist does, also. Centrifugal force is a pseudo-force, but gravity is not.
Only the layman thinks that gravity is a force, as every serious scientist knows otherwise.
Only in a forum like this somebody is capable of saying such nonsense and get somebody that believes you. You can read the "Feynman Lectures on Physics" and find where Feynman explains where gravity or gravitation are pseudo-forces. And that is just to mention my pre-grad text book. Or maybe you would like to check "Lectures on Gravitation, Addison Wesley Longman, 1995, ISBN 0-201-62734-5", which I have not checked, but maybe Feynman has a different story for his more advanced students. Maybe another text book is not in the conspiracy? Just give me the reference, and in which university the text book is used, and I can discuss it with the physicists of the best university of my country. Better yet, fax me the pages and the reference, and I will have something that will really wet the appetite of the professors.
Reality is different: the only four forces discovered in nature so far are the weak, strong, electromagnetic and gravitational forces. If you decided that only the first three are real, you would have to find how the other three can move the sun, moon, planets, and other celestial objects as seen by everybody on Earth, despite none of them has a significant effect at distances of more than a few meters away.
Only remember, while true scientists making true models, doing exact observations of the position and appearance of each object in the sky and predicting exactly their movements based precisely on the gravitational force and without any need for anything but the four known forces, can predict just about every event in the sky on objects smaller than a galaxy, the models defined by FE proponents cannot predict the simplest things.
So please show us a book different from Rowbotham's that denies that planets are very massive indeed, generally heavier than 10 to the power of 20 kilograms, kept in orbit by a very real force that pulls them towards a star. That force may be expressed as gravity or as a curvature in space-time, but every serious book on physics will tell you that both gravity and curvature in space-time are approximately equivalent unless the orbiting planet moves at speeds greater than 0.05c.
Again and again, you are trying to win physics debates with word games and rhetoric, avoiding even the simplest use of numbers, lying shamelessly about what mainstream physicists say. You do not even try to win by doing real science, proposing models and the mathematical formulation of its details, proposing experiments or showing experimental data.
We are still waiting for your reference of a physics book that says "gravity is acceleration" or "gravitation is acceleration". Now we are also waiting for a reference to "gravity is a pseudo-force".
That Newton's laws do not apply to a non-inertial frame of reference is a sad attempt at trying to say "if you are not absolutely exact, you are totally wrong".
By definition, a non-inertial frame of reference is one in which Newton's laws don't apply.
Again, where do you find such garbage? Maybe you are trying to win by taking quotes out of context, or maybe you cannot understand that physics is not about sound bytes. but you can, again, refer to the text book by Feynman and learn that the acceleration of an object is the sum of the acceleration with respect to the frame of reference plus the acceleration of the frame of reference, whatever the frame of reference is. The forces can be derived from the accelerations.
Now we are also waiting for a reference to the book that says that "By definition, a non-inertial frame of reference is one in which Newton's laws don't apply". You will find that the real books in the real world say that Newton's laws apply, you just have to add the impact of the acceleration of the frame of reference. But adding requires numbers, and you are allergic to numbers, or aren't you?