But LET is not pseudoscience.
It is, exaclty because it is presented as something different from SR.
Its you who has presented it as something different from SR:
It is a statement that everything in the world, every law of physics, either known or unknown, obeys the Principle of Relativity, and thus the Lorentz invariance. So, any new fundamental law of physics we would ever discover, would have the Lorentz-invariant wording (in its most general form). 'LET' fails to predict this, because it views the Lorentz invariance as a particular fact of only those laws we know at the moment, and there is no cause for new laws to have the same property.
As I have no problem to acknowledge, this makes sense - LET allows that some future physics do not follow the Principle of Relativity. So, realism (as used by Bell in his theorem) and de Broglie-Bohm theory are compatible with LET, but not with SR. But it seems to me that you have to decide if there is such a difference or not.
The only point were I would object is if one claims that the natural attempt to make new physics compatible with the PoR is not part of LET. It was Poincare who has made such an attempt for gravity. And I'm doing the same - the additional equation I use for the preferred coordinates is the relativistic wave equation for the preferred coordinates.
In general, I think it is useful to know different interpretations of physical theories.
In this case, it is not the interpretative part that is discussed. Interpretations cannot be checked by themselves, and metatheoretical predictions can. So they are part of full value of SR, and not just some interpretations, despite the fact they are not mathematical. That's okay: physics is not mathematics, and it is nowhere stated that a physical theory should be all parts purely mathematical.
Hm, seems I don't understand this.
Do you want to say that there is one big theory SR, which contains not only the mathematics, but also all the different interpretations, in this case as the spacetime interpretation, as the Lorentz interpretation? Or do you want to distinguish here the Principle of Relativity as a metatheoretical prediction, which can be independently checked (for example, that the PoR contradicts dBB theory and realism can be checked independently) from the interpretations? (Even if the PoR is fundamental for the spacetime interpretation but has a restricted domain of applicability for LET, and, therefore, there is a connection between interpretations and the PoR?)
Even knowing one version of everything one needs to compute all the QM predictions, and seeing Bell's theorem and its proof, everybody would have accepted Bell's inequalities as a prediction of SR.
That's only your weird opinion and I won't discuss it here anymore.
Of course, one cannot prove such hypothetical statements about human behaviour in some completely different circumstances. I think I can make a strong case for this, but not more. But, if you don't like to argue about this, no problem. It remains to note that you have also not given any justification to name my opinion weird.
