"Ilja Schmelzer" wrote in message
...

"PD" schrieb
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
You say SR and LET are mathematically equivalent. For understanding
light, this is correct. But notice that SR tells you that *all*
physical laws have the same invariance with one fell stroke. LET has to
invent a new mechanism to produce this effect for every fundamental
interaction.

No. Your LET is a strawman. Already Poincare 1905 has proposed
that all forces of nature should obey the new symmetry and tried to
modify the theory of gravity (the only other force at that time)
appropriately.

Ilja

A strawman indeed.

Poincare formulated it rather well in *1904* (Congress in St.Louis):

"The laws of physical phenomena must be the same, whether for a fixed
observer, as also for one dragged in a motion of uniform translation, so
that we do not and cannot have any means to discern whether or not we are
dragged in a such motion."

And compare that with Einstein's formulation of 1905, which --just as
Lorentz 1904-- was too limited in scope:

"the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of
reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good."

Harald

Copy of old post:
************************************************** ************
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
"PD" schrieb
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
You say SR and LET are mathematically equivalent. For understanding
light, this is correct. But notice that SR tells you that *all*
physical laws have the same invariance with one fell stroke. LET has to
invent a new mechanism to produce this effect for every fundamental
interaction.

No. Your LET is a strawman. Already Poincare 1905 has proposed
that all forces of nature should obey the new symmetry and tried to
modify the theory of gravity (the only other force at that time)
appropriately.

Ilja
************************************************** *******************

Gerald L. O'Barr comments:
Thank you, Ilja, for responding in this series of posts.
Might I make just one set of corrections to what got
printed above. The correct posting of what you
said should be as follows:


Correction to original post:
************************************************** *******************
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
"PD" schrieb
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
. . .

"PD" schrieb
You say SR and LET are mathematically equivalent. For understanding
light, this is correct. But notice that SR tells you that *all*
physical laws have the same invariance with one fell stroke. LET has to
invent a new mechanism to produce this effect for every fundamental
interaction.

No. Your LET is a strawman. Already Poincare 1905 has proposed
that all forces of nature should obey the new symmetry and tried to
modify the theory of gravity (the only other force at that time)
appropriately.

Ilja
************************************************** **************
End of correction.

O'Barr's comments:
Thank you Ilja!
The presenting of LET today assumes that all known effects
are responding to the ether in the same way, just exactly as
this is ***assumed*** to be true in SR. And thus, there are no
differences between these two theories in terms of the
complaint being made.

Thanks for reading.
Gerald.