Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.

Gerald L. O'Barr:
>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.

Learn to read, o'barf.

>TC (this is the person at the top of this post) said that Dirac
>theory was based upon SR.

What's your point, o'barf?

>I did not say this.

I know you didn't. If you had, I wouldn't have said anything.
Since you are too stupid to read what you've written, let me
repeat it for you, even though it's just above:

``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.''

And I said:

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


>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.

I already know how to use special relativity to get the dirac
equation and I understand dirac's theory. I asked _you_ to
support _your_ assertion that you could ``obviously'' derive
it using LET. Do yourself a favor. Find a retirement home and
play bingo. Just don't talk too much, since you have a lot of
difficulty following the logical structure of anything.


.