A Neo-Lorentzian Ether Exists

General OutlineWell, philocristos is wrong here. This is like making an ethical argument against evolution. If the world doesn't agree with our philosophical ideas, then we need to revamp our philosophy, not the other way around. Science always trumps philosophy, always.Pro then gives argument stating that several philosophical assumptions that he finds erroneous are necessary for Einstein's theory to be correct... but if we examine the claims, we can easily see what Pro's problem is--his argument really doesn't exist. He states things like "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 problem is that he doesn't elaborate. He just states this and expects it to be immediately obvious to the audience that he is correct. Why, for example, is verificationism wrong? All Pro says is that his book--written by philosophers rather than actual scientists--says that it is wrong. He gives no proof of a consensus. All he does is appeal to authority to make his arguments for him--but in a debate like this, one cannot do that.For example, immediately afterwards, Pro argues that the New Theory of Reference demands absolute time, and therefore absolute time is true. But he gives no evidence that is correct other than to provide a quote that isn't even arguing for the theory being true! There is no substance here, merely gossamer and finely made (and highly breakable) stained glass windows, which are easily broken by the Baseball of Reality, thrown by the Child Who Asked Why We Should Give A Sh!t, at which point his parents yell at him.Peculiar brands of humor aside, the point is this: Pro gives us no reason to think that philosophy of language is relevant here (since language is completely a social construct, and the English language is a European construct), nor that the New Theory of Reference is true, or that we should believe what Quentin Smith says! He merely expects us to. Perhaps his sources provide detail--he could even be right (though I don't think he is). But in a formal debate, none of that matters. You must support your own arguments, not merely invoke others.This is also one of the reasons why my arguments have been short. There is little to refute.Pro attempts to assert that I am being hypocritcal by saying that relativity is backed up by philosophical arguments. But I only mentioned them to state that they are, ultimately, irrelevant.Pro attempts to argue that a word for "couple" and "more than couple" are numbers. While I suppose one could argue that they are a sort of number, they are certainly not numbers in the traditional sense. Numbers are supposed to be able to be exact, not just be vague approximations.Then Pro misquotes Smolin. The actual quote, in context, is pointing out that if there is a hidden-variables theory--which we do not know there is--it is not compatible with relativity.[1] And that is another thing entirely. Moreover, this undercuts Pro's argument even more--the very fact that a hidden-variable theory is not universally agreed to exist, and is only necessary if there is a deeper level of understanding than quantum mechanics is evidence that the existence of quantum entanglement is not solid proof for Pro. And even then, Smolin's view isn't necessarily going to be mainstream!Again Pro tries to argue that the motion of Earth relative to the CMBR proves his ideas. It doesn't. He then attacks me for my pointing out that as far as I can tell the paper is from 1977--which, given that the paper puports to discover an aether, and that the paper has had over forty years to get attention, and Lorentz aether theory is still a complete fringe theory, suggests that maybe the scientists whom Pro is so quick to cite have excellent reasons for not actually believing in it!Then Pro tries to say that because empty space has physical properties he wins. But again: He has not shown how empty space having physical properties (not that it does--the fact that virtual particles come into existence does not give empty space, on the particle level, actual properties) refutes relativity.Pro's arguments rest on three main pillars.1. Einstein's model of relativity hasn't changed in over half a century, and we should therefore assume that just because Einstein said something conflicts with it, it does, and no one has found a workaround. (Example: Pro argued that because Einstein said that space having physical properties would contradict relativity, relativity is wrong--no arguments for why Einstein was correct were presented and Pro resorted to blatant appeal to authority.)2. If a scientist said something that could be interpreted as explicitly saying that something had to be abandoned, even when next to no scientists have abandoned that idea in many decades, that scientist can be fairly cited as supporting abandoning that idea. (Example: Please see most of Pro's quotes of famous scientists.)3. Arguments are just meant to link quotes together rather than providing any particular substance on their own. (Example: See most of Pro's arguments.)All of these are false.References:1. http://books.google.com...