Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
- From: "Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 5 May 2005 20:47:44 -0700
In <slrnd7grpc.t2e.dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Bilge <dubi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> . . .
<deletes by O'Barr>
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
(to TC):
>>>> 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.
Bilge wrote:
>Learn to read, o'barf.
O'Barr comments:
Learn my name, Bilge.
Should we learn to read as you show you don't?
O'Barr wrote:
>>TC (this is the person at the top of this post)
>>said that Dirac theory was based upon SR.
Bilge wrote:
> What's your point, o'barf?
O'Barr comments:
I made my point several times: I was not and I am
not the one who said that the Dirac theory was based
on SR. Therefore, if you want to know about the
Dirac theory, then ask TC.
O'Barr wrote (about the Dirac theory being based on
SR):
>>I did not say this.
Bilge wrote:
> I know you didn't.
O'Barr comments:
Good. Then ask TC. Don't ask me if you want to
know something about the Dirac relationship!
Bilge wrote:
> 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.''
O'Barr comments:
And what I said here is of course obvious if these
two theories are the identical theory. They both end
up with the same math, the same math transforms, the
same math predictions, the same results! Thanks for
repeating all this. If it gets said often enough,
then most will begin to see the true situation that
we face today! Thanks again, Bilge. Maybe you can
say it a third time! The third time is always the
charm time, isn't it?
Bilge wrote:
>And I said:
>
> If it's obvious, let's see you derive dirac theory
>using LET.
O'Barr comments:
Using SR is using LET! All that LET does is to
show us how to get SR by using a physical base. QED.
O'Barr wrote:
>>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.
Bilge wrote:
> I already know how to use special relativity to
>get the dirac equation and I understand dirac's
>theory.
O'Barr comments:
Great! Then you know how LET does it also. As
was said, LET shows us how to get SR, and once you
have SR, then everything done with SR is due to LET!
I am sure glad you are getting this point down,
Bilge. We all need to hear it again and again!
Bilge wrote:
>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.
O'Barr comments:
I never said I could do anything in terms of
Dirac! What I said was that anyone who uses SR is
using LET. And if anything was done using SR, then
they did it by using LET. Surely you see the logic
of this. If LET derives for us the math of SR, if
LET even explains why the math forms are the same,
then that is sufficient for me or anyone else to say
what was said. You would have to be nuts if you are
not able to see and to understand these simple
relationships.
Bilge, I really do not know what your problem is?
Do you not understand how SR does something? Or is
it you do not understand how LET derives SR? Or do
you not understand what I said? Or do you not
understand what TC said? You really have a problem,
if you think there is a problem with me. I have said
nothing that is not obvious and agreed to by all!
Please re-read what has been done in these posts.
Thanks!
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr@xxxxxxxxx>
+ Remove 3 dote for e-mail.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
- From: Bilge
- Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
- References:
- Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
- From: Bilge
- Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
- From: Bilge
- Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
- Prev by Date: Re: Beam me up - trying to get a basic understanding of GR
- Next by Date: Re: SR question
- Previous by thread: Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
- Next by thread: Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
