An elevator with constant acceleration and no gravity is a sophisticated piece of engineering. If you allow that you shouldn't balk at an instrument that can measure the direction of gravitational force. It's a thought experiment we're discussing.
You are correct that the angles of displacement would be small but they would all be directed at the same point, and in that respect they would differ from force generated by acceleration.

• sophisticated machinery is fine - sagefr0g - April 21, 2003 - 01:34 UTC
  • You have a point - jetty - April 21, 2003 - 03:00 UTC
    • and you have a point also - sagefr0g - April 22, 2003 - 02:15 UTC
      • Other points - jetty - April 23, 2003 - 12:26 UTC
        • alternative views.... hmm - sagefr0g - April 24, 2003 - 02:31 UTC
          • Heaver objects do fall faster. - duordi - April 24, 2003 - 03:45 UTC
            • perhaps in a universe with only two objects - sagefr0g - April 24, 2003 - 15:40 UTC
              • Other objects pull both ways. - duordi - April 24, 2003 - 17:30 UTC
                • those other massive objects "out there" - sagefr0g - April 24, 2003 - 19:44 UTC
                  • Inertia is the attraction of a mass to its own gravity field. - duordi - April 24, 2003 - 22:49 UTC
                    • basketballs do not fall consistently - sagefr0g - April 25, 2003 - 03:52 UTC
                • my bad - sagefr0g - April 25, 2003 - 02:32 UTC
                • still digging at your equation... - sagefr0g - April 25, 2003 - 18:31 UTC
                  • I think I have a solution you will like. - duordi - April 25, 2003 - 20:49 UTC
                    • another wrinkle is that - sagefr0g - April 27, 2003 - 14:20 UTC
                      • You lost me on that one. - duordi - April 27, 2003 - 20:19 UTC
                        • drop a basketball from height X - sagefr0g - April 28, 2003 - 01:18 UTC
                          • So your saying.... - duordi - April 29, 2003 - 01:53 UTC
                            • uhmm - sagefr0g - April 30, 2003 - 22:15 UTC