Originally Posted by studiot It's worth observing that modern Physics has moved on and doesn't work in terms of forces. 
If you're referring to Einstein's general theory of relativity (GR) then its a common misconception that there's no gravitational force on bodies in freefall. Einstein never said anything like that in fact and his theory of GR does not have that as an inherent component. However this is a controversial subject. The only true sense in which gravity is not a force in relativity is that its not derivable from a 4vector.
In GR the gravitational force is what's called an
inertial force. For details on inertial forces and examples from commonly used texts on GR which hold that such forces are "real" please see my webpage on this at:
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/phy...tial_force.htm
That webpage gives a quote by Einstein on the subject of inertial forces
Albert Einstein That the relation of gravity to inertia was the motivation for general relativity is expressed in an article Einstein wrote which appeared in the February 17, 1921 issue of Nature
Can gravitation and inertia be identical? This question leads directly to the General Theory of Relativity. Is it not possible for me to regard the earth as free from rotation, if I conceive of the centrifugal force, which acts on all bodies at rest relatively to the earth, as being a "real" gravitational field of gravitation, or part of such a field? If this idea can be carried out, then we shall have proved in very truth the identity of gravitation and inertia. For the same property which is regarded as inertia from the point of view of a system not taking part of the rotation can be interpreted as gravitation when considered with respect to a system that shares this rotation. According to Newton, this interpretation is impossible, because in Newton's theory there is no "real" field of the "Coriolisfield" type. But perhaps Newton's law of field could be replaced by another that fits in with the field which holds with respect to a "rotating" system of coordinates? My conviction of the identity of inertial and gravitational mass aroused within me the feeling of absolute confidence in the correctness of this interpretation.

Even Steven Hawking seems to be confused about things like this. In an article in Time Magazine's person of the century issue he wrote
What if spacetimean entity Einstein invented to incorporate the three familiar dimensions of space with a fourth dimension, timewas curved, and not flat, as had been assumed?

Not only was it was Minkowski, not Einstein, who invented spacetime. but time, a one dimensional entity, cannot be curved because it requires a minimum of two dimensions to even speak of curvature.
He also wrote
His idea was that mass and energy would warp spacetime in some manner yet to be determined. Objects like apples or planets would try to move in straight lines through spacetime, but their paths would appear to be bent by a gravitational field because spacetime is curved.

All paths taken by objects in freefall, like an apple, move on geodesics  "The straightest possible lines". If he's talking about the spatial trajectory then that's also curved even in flat spacetimes when in either a uniform gravitational field or an arbitrary noninertial frame in flat spacetime.