" Logicus to Likebox: I suggest Likebox should adopt good faith and civility and consider whether it is not Logicus who is silly and ridiculous and misunderstands here, but rather perhaps Likebox who is insufficiently English-literate to understand the problems with this passage. For as it stands the now revised principle is still vulnerable to an elementary counterexample. For it now states: ""He thought about the case of a uniformly accelerated box, and noted that it would be indistinguishable from a box sitting still in an unchanging gravitational field."" But a uniformly accelerated box is clearly distinguishable from a box at rest - the former is moving but the latter is not. Is the principle this
" Logicus to Likebox: I suggest Likebox should adopt good faith and civility and consider whether it is not Logicus who is silly and ridiculous and misunderstands here, but rather perhaps Likebox who is insufficiently English-literate to understand the problems with this passage. For as it stands the now revised principle is still vulnerable to an elementary counterexample. For it now states: ""He thought about the case of a uniformly accelerated box, and noted that it would be indistinguishable from a box sitting still in an unchanging gravitational field."" But a uniformly accelerated box is clearly distinguishable from a box at rest - the former is moving but the latter is not. Is the principle this right