Re: is free-fall an inertial frame?

[Ludwik Kowalski <KowalskiL@MAIL.MONTCLAIR.EDU>]

Stefan Jeglinski wrote:

> 1. I would much prefer to call it a misconception than
> a paradox. I don't think paradox fits here.
>
> 2. I will be happy to formulate it, but it may be a classic
> example of an inmate writing the asylum rules.
>
> So I will try to formulate it (don't look for anything real
> soon - after all, I have to rethink Newtonian physics and
> include GR) and post it back to the list for consideration.

I think that a clear distinction between what happens in
the case of our usual constant g=9.8 approximation, and
in general (for example, near the center of a planet) should
be made. After all we talk about inertial frames before we
introduce the law of universal gravitation.

I would also suggest not to include GR in the trivial, but
important case of g=const. A separate misconception item
for the GR case could then be presented. Why is this better?
Because many of us never deal with GR and may only be
confused. And you probably can produce the first item
immediately; you already formulated it, more or less.
These are only suggestions; do what you feel is the best.

I do not know why textbook authors always illustrate our
ability to identify an accelerating system in the context of
a horizontal motion (pendulum accelerometer).
Ludwik Kowalski