Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.

Gerald L. O'Barr:
>In <slrnd7nruq.5c.dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Bilge <dubi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> . . .
>
>Bilge wrote:
>>>> What's your point, o'barf?
>>
>O'Barr wrote:
>>> 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.
>
>Bilge wrote:
>> Then I take it your point was to evade the
>> question.
>
>O'Barr comments:
> Take it any way you want. I did not bring up
>Dirac. I did not say or base anything upon Dirac.

Yes, you did. Now you're backpeddling.

>If someone said that SR was used to bake a cake, I
>would have said, then LET could be used to also bake
>a cake.

Perhaps you should be a bit more careful to confine yourself to
only those statements you can personally support.

>It does not mean anything more than this.

I'm not asking you prove any more than what you claimed.

>SR and LET are the exact same theory, as far as the
>math goes.

Then demonstrate that as I requested. If you can't prove the claims
you make, don't post the claims.

.