Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.

In <slrnd7pf6i.5c.dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Bilge <dubi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> . . .

>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.

Bilge wrote:
> Yes, you did. Now you're backpeddling.

O'Barr comments:
That is an interesting charge. I never had a
bicycle that could be back-peddled. I could sit
backwards on the handle bars, and sitting backwards,
I could then peddle the bicycle forward while moving
sitting backwards. Does this qualify for
'backpedding'?

O'Barr wrote:
>>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.

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

O'Barr comments:
And perhaps you can also be a little more careful
in understanding what was being said!


O'Barr wrote:
>> It does not mean anything more than this.

Bilge wrote:
> I'm not asking you prove any more than what you
>claimed.

O'Barr wrote:
>>SR and LET are the exact same theory, as far as the
>>math goes.

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

O'Barr comments:
The claims I make, I have both referenced and
posted. LET establishes the exact same final math as
SR. LET is the correct physical base upon which SR
math is based. Once this has been established, then
everything done in the name of SR is due to LET, pure
and simple.
I do not know everything. I cannot do everything
that has been done in the name of SR. But if the
math of SR has been connected to its proper base,
then all of what SR has done is now connected to LET.
I have done what needs to be done. Your acceptance
of this is up to you, but you have no call upon me to
do more. If you want to refute me, then take it by
the numbers:
Do you disagree that LET establishes the same math
as SR? By the way, I have never heard you say one
way or the other! Why is that? What is so hard for
you to say simple truths, that the math of these two
theories are the same?
Do you disagree that LET makes the same math
predictions as SR? By the way, I have never heard
you say one way or the other on this? Why is that?
What is it that makes it so hard for you to say such
simple and obvious things?
Do you disagree that LET is a physical based
theory, and SR has no physical base. SR is only
math! By the way, I have never heard you say, one
way or another, a thing about this. Is there a
reason why you are not willing to say anything about
this?
And by the way, I have not heard you address
anything that is related to the real problems being
presented. Why is that? Surely you really do know
if our present known reality could really be
expressed in simple 3-D or not. Surely you know that
GR can be made into a 3-D reality. Surely you know
these simple things. Surely you know that Dirac can
be formulated in different ways, using different
approaches. Surely you know these things. So where
are you, Bilge, when you are really needed?

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

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OBarr (globarr) Book of Knowledge!
    ... What did Bilge write? ... statement of physics or of anything of substance. ... its symmetry. ... SR is only a math theory. ...
    (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: OBarr (globarr) Book of Knowledge!
    ... > What did Bilge write? ... >statement of physics or of anything of substance. ... >its symmetry. ... > SR is only a math theory. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • 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: ... >>the Dirac theory, then ask TC. ... and this is why they therefore have the same math, ... math, the same predictions, and not have the same ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)