sigurdW, no one is holding anything against you. We are merely pointing out to you where your ideas are in contradiction to currently accepted physics.
You cannot disprove relativity with a thought experiment, let alone one that is built on mere assumptions. You will need hard, empirical evidence for that - so you have any ?Im very sorry if I disprove the theory,
Yes of course - but in order to show this you will have to ACTUALLY construct one, and it must work exactly the way you claim it would.IF an sWclock is possible THEN the Principle of Equivalence is violated!
That's just the first step - after that then you will need to explain why pretty much all physics that relies on relativity ( QED, celestial mechanics, cosmology, quantum field theory,... ) gives the correct results even though the basis it is built on is wrong !
Are you accusing SpeedFreek of forgery ? If so you are treading on very thin ice, because the phrase he quoted is in fact one of yours.Let me see a complete and not forged quote showing that I do so.
Or else, Mr, I will insist that you are a forger!
He is making a statement based on currently accepted laws of physics. Relativity is understood to be a valid, verifiable model of physics within its domain of applicability - it is empirically well supported, and no experiment has ever shown any violation of the equivalence principle.Are you making a statement of Scientific Fact, or do you express an opinion of yours?
Thus it is perfectly acceptable for us to claim that, based on current understanding of physics, such a clock cannot be constructed. If you are unhappy with this you will need to present empirical evidence that it IS indeed possible to build such a device, and that it functions as you say it will.
Ok, my opinion is : you are going too far now.You have no legitimate reason for believing this rat to give good advice, assuming he means well then remember that you proved long ago that 1+1= 1 only if you dont understand what you speak about!