Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.

In <slrnd7c17b.7j2.dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
(Bilge) <dubi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>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> wrote:
>> 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.

Bilge wrote:
> If it's obvious, let's see you derive dirac theory
>using LET.

Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> comments:
I am sorry, Bilge. You have gotten confused as to
who was saying what. TC (this is the person at the
top of this post) said that Dirac theory was based
upon SR. I did not say this. And I have no
intentions of saying this. This is TC's comment, and
if you want to know how SR supports Dirac's theory,
ask him anything you want.

O'Barr wrote:
>>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.

Bilge wrote:
> 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.

Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> comments:
Oh! Oh! Bilge is saying here, right here on this
net, right here in the year 2005, that LET is not
mathematically equivalent to SR. This is very
interesting, since this equivalency has now been said
to be true by some very large number of people. Are
you saying, Bilge, that Tom Roberts is also a
loudmouth crackpot? Are you saying that
Dr. George J. Marklin (website at:
<http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/marklin1.htm>)
is a loudmouth crackpot?
What are you saying, Bilge? Let us hear you say this
again! I like to see these things occur. Please say
it again!

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
+ Remove 3 dots for e-mail

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
    ... Gerald L. O'Barr wrote: ... Bilge wrote: ... exact same math as used in SR. ... correct physics that goes with the correct math. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
    ... Bilge wrote: ... >> ought to restate the question. ... Gerald L. O'Barr comments: ... math or the assumptions used in SR. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Bad ethics
    ... misunderstanding what someone is saying. ... much less what you or Gerald is ... Because it suits them to stay silent, ... BigBig bigbigbigbigbigbig hindrance to scientific communication there ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Why a Problem?
    ... Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr) wrote: ... >>The very purpose of science is to deal with and solve problems! ... Hi Bilge! ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Post 2. Facts and Rules for SR Transforms!
    ... Gerald L. O'Barr wrote: ... >> Please note, G, that at this point Bilge did ... I have now several times posted the perfect paradox ... that some of these previous explanations were ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)