A Neo-Lorentzian Ether Exists

AveGeneral SummaryCon argues that since relativity is a scientific theory, and not a philosophical one, then philosophical arguments against Einstein's interpretation of relativity shouldn't matter. Several lines of criticism can be brought up against this. As my debating friend philochristos once pointed out to me, "a sound argument is a sound argument, whether it's scientific or philosophical. We shouldn't prefer one argument over another because of what kind of argument it is, but because of whether the argument is sound." I rely on his wise words to defend me in this debate.Furthermore, Einstein's special relativity was not just a scientific theory, as Con would like for it to be. It is both a scientific theory and a work of philosophy. His theory makes the following philosophical assumptions, assumptions with are not outside of the theory, but a part of the theory itself. For example, as I quoted in the last round:- "Einstein took it for granted that all of our judgements in which time plays a role must have a ‘physical meaning’, where physical meaning is given by operational definitions. Operationism is already a strong form of verificationism, but there is more’’. - “The only justification for that assumption is that it is observationally or sensibly impossible to distinguish uniform motion from rest relative to such a frame, and if absolute space and absolute motion or rest cannot be sensibly observed, they therefore do not exist (and may be said to be meaningless )’’Con says that only philosophical assumptions necessary for Einstein's theory matter. That's exactly the point! These philosophical assumptions are necessary for Einstein's theory. Without these assumptions, Einstein's theory would have no basis for saying that judgements of time must have a physical meaning. Without these assumptions, Einstein's theory could not have said that absolute space and motion don't exist. Therefore, his now-refuted assumptions of verificationism and positivism are necessary to his theory. They are not like Con's Greek example, because you can easily separate Greek platonism from evolution. However, you can't separate Einstein's theory with his philosophy, because the philosophy he used to justify his assumptions about time and space are part of the theory itself.Con argued that none of my arguments in this section presented a logical problem for relativity. I countered this by showing that my mind projecton fallacy argument (unanswered) and the NTR argument both present a logical contradiction with relativity, so there is a logical problem. This entire part of the debate went unanswered in the last argument.Con writes in his last round that "relativity is not only backed up by philosophical arguments, it is backed up by empirical arguments. " Firstly, he fails to provide any philosophical argument for relativity. Secondly, he's the debater who just told us that relativity is a scientific theory, not a philosophical one, so arguing on philosophical grounds is meaningless. Is philosophy irrelevant to relativity, but supports it at the same time? I'm not sure what Con's view is anymore.Furthermore, Con counters arguments that I haven't even presented. He argues that it doesn't matter to relativity whether or not it is intuitive, or if our language necessitates an objective present. I haven't made the argument that relativity is false because it's not intuitive, so this is misattribution. Secondly, the argument wasn't that our language necessitates an objective present, but that counterfactual statements would be necessarily false if Einstein's theory was true. He further does this when he says that 'we know time dilation is a thing, whether or not our language says it is irrelevant". When did I argue that our language is contradictory with the idea of time dilation? He also seems to be suggesting that time dilation is proof that Einstein's theory is true and that the NL interpretation is false. However, there is a Neo-Lorentzian explanation of time dilation: 'By characterizing the variables for moving frames as effective variables, Lorentz maintained that the real spatial lengths, heights, and widths, and real time, existed only in the absolute reference frame. But omitting the Galilean equation, Einstein's theory lost this causal explanatory power. The coordinates (and all properties) of his inertial reference frames become 'brute facts'." [1] So, not only is time dilation consistent with my argument, but it actually helps.Con states that there are languages with no numbers. However, according to his source, "participants used three terms: one was used for a 'single' spool, one roughly corresponded to 'two-or-three' spools, and the last was used to indicate the rest of the spools, or 'many.'" Perhaps I'm wrong, but two and three sound like numbers to me. After reading the full article, it's only suggesting that the tribe in question has no exact number for certain quantities, not that they don't have any numbers at all.Con rhteorically asks "If adhering to an older philosophical theory is grounds to dismiss a scientific theory, must we dismiss evolution, gravity, the laws of mechanics, et cetera ad infinitum?". The problem with this argument is the same problem that his Greek example had. While we can separate, for example, Newton's belief in alchemy from his Principia, we cannot separate Einstein's theory and his philosophy, since his philosophy is part of the theory itself.Con says that I don't need a reference frame, but a preferred reference frame, so the CMBR doesn't contradict relativity. Well, I'll just consult him to the physicist Lee Smolin, who wrote that ‘’To describe how the correlations are established, a hidden variables theory must embrace one observer’s definition of simultaneity [italics are not mine].’’ This is logically equivalent to saying that we must embrace a preferred frame of reference. Furthermore, he writes that the CMBR is a way to "fix a preferred family of observers [italics mine]'. So, it seems to me that I am arguing for a preferred reference frame, not just a reference frame.This also ties into Con's argument that entanglement doesn't violate relativity. How could entanglement not violate relativity? From Prokhovnik, Bell, and Popper, it follows that quantum entanglement establishes a preferred reference frame which should cause us to abandon Einstein's interpretation. He referenced two articles, but he fails to elucidate their content in the form of an argument.Con launches an attack on the book Einstein, Relativity, and Absolute Simultaneity. Unfortunately, his attacks are not based on fact. He says that it's a book written by a philsopher and apologist William Lane Craig. This description is extremely inaccurate. The book in question is a collection of essays from various philosophers and physicists, with one article from Dr. Craig, who also co-edited the paper. It is not, in any sense, a book by William Lane Craig. Con suggests that we should doubt the book because Dr. Craig has a motivation to believe in god. However, the book was also co-edited by Quentin Smith, one of the most prominent atheistic philosophers in history. This objection ends up flying back in Con's face.In my opening statement and the last round, I referenced an experiment which detected the Earth's motion relative to the CMBR, and established a new aether drift. Con doesn't do anything to answer this argument other than point out that it's from a paper from 1977. Con therefore drops this argument.Con reiterates the objection that the CMBR is moving, and that it's therefore "useless" as an absolute frame of reference. Firstly, I don't see how it can be "useless" given the experiment mentioned. Secondly, I explained in my last round why the position of the CMBR itself doesn't matter.Speaking of dropped argument, I made the argument that an ether exists because empty space has physical properties. Con dropped this argument. So, just by this, the resolution has been affirmed. (Con also failed to explain what he meant by "quantum mechanics transcends time and space".)ConclusionCon drops too many points in this debate. - He dropped the argument that quantum mechanics transcends time and space- He dropped the argument that Smoot's experiments measured the Earth's motion relative to the CMBR.- He drops the argument that my Section 1 doesn't present any logical contradiction with relativity.- He drops the argument that an ether exists because empty space has physical properties. This is enough to win the debate for me.- He drops the argument that he is equivocating on the meaning of "real" in quantum physics.He also attacks many arguments that I never made.- I never said that relativity is false because it contradicts intuition.- I never said that our language necessitates an objective present.- I never said that time dilation and our language contradict each other.It's not as if Con ran out of room (he had many thousands of characters left in each round). It's that he couldn't provide any arguments to negate mine. For these reasons, I recommend a vote for Pro.[1] Einstein, Relativity, and Absolute Simultaneity, pg 83Vale