Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mike Fontenot Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: SR is just another name for LET Date: Sun, 06 Sep 2015 17:52:47 -0600 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 14 Message-ID: <55ECD1CF.80705@comcast.net> References: <9uOdndVwnvXNUHHInZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="df273c419cead3db2e25fd0f0165e9d0"; logging-data="21692"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19wOP/ko/Zy79wWd+aeqjAo" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 In-Reply-To: <9uOdndVwnvXNUHHInZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> Cancel-Lock: sha1:pFLihVaViEVDQTS+cUxIJO4qurw= Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:363288 On 9/6/15 5:33 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: > > In particular, SR obeys Lorentz invariance, while LET does not [...]. Indeed the key concept of SR is SYMMETRY, while the key > concept of LET is its completely unobservable ether. > I don't know much about LET, but I've seen it claimed that it is consistent with all experimental results. IF that is true, I don't understand how it is not contradicted by Michelson-Morley. Can anyone set me straight about that? -- https://sites.google.com/site/cadoequation/cado-reference-frame All you ever need to know about the twin "paradox".