Force of ignorance

Einstein and Newton are my heroes, but if any scientific convention leads us astray, even one established by the most intelligent players in the game, it must be ignored or corrected (or my misunderstanding must be rectified).

List of junk that I don't like in science

• A frame experiencing gravity is indistinguishable from an accelerating frame
  
  Observers in each of these frames will observe a warping of space around them. A linearly accelerating frame will observe a cartesian warping, where "lines of length contraction" are parallel. Under gravity, a frame will observe a polar warping, where lines converge at the center of gravity. Across the "height" of the frame of a person standing on Earth, there will be a gravitational differential (gravity should be measurably stronger at your feet than at your head, even if the difference is minuscule).
  
  A single point of observation would still not be able to tell the difference between a linear acceleration (that can change in magnitude as the point changes position), and the force of gravity. Again, as with Time Relativity, there is the suggestion that an "inertial frame" that contains "stuff" where there is distance between the stuff, can not be consistently described as a single entity. Different points within an inertial frame will experience phenomena differently.
  
  

  Update: Einstein thought of this. I think they're expressing the same idea when they say "in mathematical terms, it is the geodesic motion associated with a specific connection which depends on the gradient of the gravitational potential. Space, in this construction, still has the ordinary Euclidean geometry. However, spacetime as a whole is more complicated." (IE. it's all curved up, yo.)

  
  
• Inertia: A body at rest tends to stay at rest
  
  To claim that the natural state of an object at rest is to remain at rest, requires one to consider the object in the absence of gravity. This requires one to consider it independent of any other matter, because otherwise there will be gravitational forces. But then you lose all definition of "at rest" verses "moving", because movement is relative. To say that the object is at rest implies that it is not moving relative to some other object. You cannot compare it to "the frame of space", which doesn't exist in relativistic physics. This object that you are considering independent of all other matter, has no way to distinguish whether it is moving or at rest compared to other things it can't observe, and its inertia or momentum is undefined.
  
  If you add another mass into the picture, then we must have that a body at rest will tend to accelerate toward other masses. To cling to the old definition of inertia, we're compelled to treat gravity as a constant force which is something that is "additional" to the underlying natural state of things. But gravity is the underlying natural state of things. Bodies that obey a more natural definition of inertia will tend to attract each other.
  
  This almost suggests that an object in free fall is not observing a "force" so much, but rather just being inert within the relative space around it. That is roughly how it feels, to the observer. Another observer that is overcoming gravity is the one who employs or experiences forces.
  
  

  Update: Einstein thought of this. "This suggests the definition of a new class of inertial motion, namely that of objects in free fall under the influence of gravity."

  
  Perhaps trying to unify the "force" of gravity with the other fundamental forces is like asking "what kind of apple is this navel orange?"