Between explaining a curved path using a fictitious force in a rotating frame and explaining the same path using inertia in an inertial frame, which view is described as simplest and truest?

1. Both the rotating-frame and inertial-frame descriptions can be used to describe the same curved motion correctly. 2. In the inertial frame, inertia alone explains the path, and every force involved has a real, identifiable origin. 3. In the rotating frame, a fictitious force such as the Coriolis force must be invented, and that force has no identifiable physical source. 4. Because the inertial-frame description needs no forces without a real origin, it is described as the simplest and truest view, rather than the two views being equally preferred or equally incomplete. _Source: OpenStax College Physics (CC BY 4.0), Ch 6 "Uniform Circular Motion and Gravitation", section 6.4 Fictitious Forces and Non-inertial Frames: The Coriolis Force_