This thread discusses an interesting point Jonathan Scott brought up at https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=264782&page=2. A naive application of the equivalence principle (EP) would suggest that a free falling charge does not radiate, and that a charge on the surface of the earth does radiate. Both statements are false. What's going wrong? Some possibilities I've seen in textbooks and other threads are: 1) The EP is only heuristic, since it assumes a uniform gravitational field which does not exist in General Relativity (Shooting Star). 2a) The EP only applies locally (first order in Taylor series). Radiation from an accelerated charge is nonlocal and cannot be analysed using the EP. 2b) The EP only applies in a free-falling frame shielded from outside influences (Rindler, Essential Relativity, OUP 2006). 2c) The EP does not apply to radiation from an accelerated charge because it involves tidal forces which are second order (Martin, General Relaivity, Ellis Horwood 1988). 3) "However, when you take into account the motion of the observer as well, the transferred energy depends on the relative acceleration, so that for example an observer in an accelerating rocket would not detect any radiation being emitted from a charge at rest within that rocket." (Jonathan Scott). See for example: Shariati and Khorrami http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0006037; Almeida and Saa http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506049. Question: Does (3) constitute a defence of the EP, or does it actually illustrate a limitation of the EP similar to those of (1,2a,2b,2c), since it appears to depend on Rindler coordinates, which are only locally inertial?