Firstly, I want to say that I realise that there are a lot of questions on inertial and non-inertial frames of reference, but the question I had in mind, no one seemed to have asked.
I've just started to study about Newton's Laws of Motion, and I was studying inertial and non-inertial frames. In the book I was studying, they gave an example of a lift's cord breaking, thus causing the lift to fall. Now, the lift had a person and a lamp inside it, and so the person looked at the lamp, saw that it was not accelerating, and thus concluded that $a=0$ and hence $F=0$. So, the tension in the string of the lamp balanced the weight of the lamp, and we got $T=mg$.
Then, the book said that a person standing on the ground saw the lift falling, and concluded $a=10$, hence $F$ is not $0$. Hence, the book concluded, one frame was a bad frame, and one should not apply Newtons First Law on it.
But, this is what I don't understand. Why was the person in the lift in a bad frame? He applied Newtons Frist Law correctly and got the correct answer. With respect to him, the lamp was at rest, and so he concluded correctly that $F=0$. The person has no way of knowing that the lift had in fact broken and was accelerating. To him, it was at rest.
Then, the book went on to say that the Earth was approximately an inertial frame. Again, what's the point? If tomorrow, scientists found out that the entire universe is accelerating at $1000m/s^2$, who would care? We cant notice it, and to us, the universe is at rest. Hence, to us, Newton's First Law holds.
Any answer would be appreciated. I realise that I'm wrong in by thought process, but I just wanted to make sure everyone understands my reasoning.