Larmor's transform does not satisfy the principle of relativity while the Lorentz transform does, but only Larmor's transform satisfies the null results of the MMX while the Lorentz transform is a special case to Larmor's transform. <shrgu>
> This is one way of deriving the > equations of LET (Lorentz Ether Theory). Lorentz used a completely different > method in his 1904 paper.
Nonsense! You cannot derive anything with convoluted logics. <shrug>
> There is a much larger class of theories equivalent to SR, consisting of all > theories in which these two criteria apply: > a) the round-trip speed of light is isotropically c in any inertial > frame
This requires Voigt's postulate. <shrug>
> and > b) the one-way speed of light is isotropically c in one frame
This has never shown so by any experimentations. <shrug>
> Note that (a) is solidly established experimentally,
Not quite! Through interpretations to experimental results. <shrug>
> and (b) is basically what > it means to have an aether frame, or any sort of "preferred" frame. > > If you work out the details, you find that all of these theories > have transforms between inertial frames that differ from the > Lorentz transform only in the way coordinate clocks are > synchronized in inertial frames. Note that except for SR and > LET, the synchronization method is ad hoc and artificial.