Einstine theories as clumsy as Ptolemaic geocentric system.

Partical Accelerators use electro magnetic waves to accelerate
particals using their charge.

Since electro magnetic waves travel at speed "c" the max speed they
can force a charged partical is C.

Say there is a pipe of water and a ball in inside. And water is
travelling at 2 m/ s speed. How fast the ball can be moved.

1. initially ball is at rest.

2. slowly its speed is 1.999 m / s.

3. We keep increasing the flow of water at speed 2 m / s Then speed of
Ball reaches 1.999999 m /.s

But never the Ball will attacin 2 m / s Why?

Because 2 m/ s is the speed of water and due to viscosity and other
factors Ball can never travel faster than 2 m / s.

So you now understand why Partical Accelerators which uses electro
magnetic waves can never have a partical travel at speed c.

Bye
Sanny

Be Intelligent: [Only registered users see links. ]

On Sep 1, 9:41 am, Sanny <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

You were actually doing well till you tried to create an example of an
evolving set of theories and research technics.

x=cats
y=dogs

n=cats+dogs
m=dogs+cats

since n is equal to m, y+x = x+y

Therefore cats do not equal dogs but cats plus dogs can equal dogs
plus cats. Ptolemy's system describes all apparent aspects of the
universe, his theory works in describing the solar system. It is just
harder to believe in his "sidereal" motions than to believe in the
general theory that the planets revolve around the sun.


The Ptolemaic system

The prevailing theory in Europe as Copernicus was writing was that
created by Ptolemy in his Almagest, dating from about 150 A.D.. The
Ptolemaic system drew on many previous theories that viewed Earth as a
stationary center of the universe. Stars were embedded in a large
outer sphere which rotated relatively rapidly, while the planets dwelt
in smaller spheres between — a separate one for each planet. To
account for apparent anomalies to this view, such as the retrograde
motion observed in many planets, a system of epicycles was used, by
which a planet rotated on a small axis while also rotating on a larger
axis around the Earth.

A complementary theory to Ptolemy's employed homocentric spheres: the
spheres within which the planets rotated, could themselves rotate
somewhat. This theory predated Ptolemy (it was first devised by
Eudoxus of Cnidus; by the time of Copernicus it was associated with
Averroes). Also popular with astronomers were variations such as
eccentrics — by which the rotational axis was offset and not
completely at the center.

Ptolemy's unique contribution to this theory was the idea of an equant
— a complicated addition which specified that, when measuring the
rotation of the Sun, one sometimes used the central axis of the
universe, but sometimes a different axis. This had an overall effect
of making certain orbits "wobble," a fact that would greatly bother
Copernicus (such wobbling rendered implausible the idea of material
"spheres" in which the planets rotated). In the end, after all these
complications, the astronomers could still not get observation and
theory to match up exactly. In Copernicus' day, the most up-to-date
version of the Ptolemaic system was that of Peurbach (1423-1461) and
Regiomontanus (1436-1476).

[Only registered users see links. ]

Addition is the mathematical process of putting things together. The
plus sign "+" means that two numbers are added together.

[Only registered users see links. ]

Languages of the first order predicate calculus allow in addition
individual constants, predicate symbols and operation or function
symbols.

[Only registered users see links. ]

On Sep 1, 7:53*pm, "Spaceman" <[Only registered users see links. ]>
wrote:

idiot anti relativist monley

On Sep 2, 4:27*pm, Errol <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

****! I mispelled monkey

Errol wrote:

Well, I was smart enough to know what you wanted to type.
So I don't think I am a monkey nor a monley and
I am glad you have no actual physics argument against the facts
I post.


--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman

I'm enjoying your comments but wondering how you can stand
to converse with a man who refuses to spell Einstein correctly.

To Sanny, I say:

The local laws of physics, including the speed of light,
are the same for all inertial frames of reference,
including each 4-D event in a free-fall frame.

Does Sanny know that his ideas have already been falsified** ?
** to the extent that they can be falsified.
Does he dream of getting a Nobel for that ?