Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.

Gerald L. O'Barr:
>In <1114741160.533796.144470@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>TC <tcla...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>TC wrote:
>>No. That is not what it means. It means the
>>situation is complicated. Dirac's theory depends on
>>SR but also includes more physics than is in SR,
>
>Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
> I am sure it is complicated if you cannot see how
>SR was necessary. And it also seems to be too
>complicated for you to see that since LET explains
>SR, then obviously anything that SR is able to do is
>able to be done by LET.

If it's obvious, let's see you derive dirac theory using LET.

>Let me repeat this! Any and
>everything done by SR is also able to be done by LET,
>or else these two theories are not equivalent.

They aren't equivalent. You're an idiot who needs to move into
a rest home so you'll have some people to play bingo with, at
least until they decide you're just a loudmouth crackpot.


.