A Neo-Lorentzian Ether Exists

AveI: The Downfall of Einstein’s Philosophy of ScienceThe resolution states that a theory is better than another theory if it has more support from philosophy and empirical evidence. When comparing Einstein’s theory, which had a relational, non-absolute view of time, with Lorentz’s theory, which had an absolute view of time, as well as an ether, it is necessary to consider the philosophical foundation of each theory. Pro says that philosophy is irrelevant to Einstein’s theory, but I certainly beg to differ. As I pointed out in my last round, Einstein’s formulation of special relativity depended on his philosophical assumptions. For example, Einstein, Relativity, and Absolute Simultaneity notes that “Einstein’s rejection of Newtonian absolute space and time was predicated upon a positivist philosophy of science.”. It goes on to say that “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’’. It goes on to say that: “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 )’’. [1] As these quotes show, this is not some esoteric debate on philosophy, but a central part of Einstein’s ideas on time, space, and motion. Einstein’s definitions of time, space, and simultaneity are all based on these philosophical assumptions that are imbedded in special relativity itself. How can Einstein’s assumptions be irrelevant to his scientific theory when they are a part of the theory itself?Criticizing my first section, Pro says that “Nothing here makes any experimental attempts to prove that the ether exists”. Well, I would hope that a section on philosophy contains no such thing! This section is an attack on Einstein’s philosophical assumptions, not an attack based on the empirical evidence. He also says that there are no logical problems presented. However, it’s clear from reading my first section that logical problems do exist. For example, I argued that there is a logical fallacy embedded in Einstein’s theory, the fallacy of mind-projection. This is an argument concluding that his theory is logically invalid. I also argued that his theory is logically incompatible with the New Theory of Reference, which most philosophers of language hold to be true. Therefore, there are logical problems with Einstein’s theory, and Pro didn’t make any attempt to show that they were consistent. Finally, he says that, by itself, philosophy does not disprove a scientific theory. I don’t think anybody has made this argument. I’m making a cumulative case, combining philosophy and science, against Einstein and in favor of absolute space, time ,and the existence of an ether.II: Experimental Vindications of the Neo-Lorentzian InterpretationCon starts off by stating that my arguments “cannot be said to be remotely close to the Lorentzian aether theory”. This is supposed to be true because my arguments don’t establish the ether as traditionally defined. However, this argument isn’t relevant to the debate. The resolution argues for a Neo-Lorentzian theory. The term “neo” implies that the theory is new. It’s not meant to establish the ether as defined by Lorentz, but the ether as defined by the Neo-Lorentzian theory. The definitions in the Lorentz theory, and the Neo-Lorentz theory, are different. When Pro quotes Lorentz’s definition, and then argues that I haven’t established the ether as he defined it, it’s simply a red herring; he’s not quoting the Neo-Lorentzian definition, which is the one I’m arguing for. (It’s a confusing distinction, but one should view the Lorentz theory as the traditional view that Lorentz argued for, and the Neo-Lorentzian theory as a modern, updated version of it.)Con argues that the CMBR cannot provide us with absolute space because space itself is expanding. Because of this, the CMBR changes. I’m not sure what evidence Con has to support any of these assertions. Beside this point, I don’t understand how it could possibly matter to my argument. Nobody is suggesting that the CMBR stays still and never moves, so it serves to give us something to measure our motion relative to. Rather, the argument is that the CMBR, since it appears isotropic to an observer at rest, and anisotropic to observers in motion, it allows to objectively distinguish who is moving and who is not, giving us absolute space. If the CMBR appears isotropic to you, then you are at rest. If the CMBR appears anisotropic to you, then you are in motion. In order to establish the CMBR as an objective measure of who is moving and who isn’t, we don’t need to say that the CMBR is changeless. It can move, stay the same, move and stop moving. It simply doesn’t matter as long as it appears isotropic to observers at rest, and anisotropic to observers in motion. Even if we granted the unproven assertion that the CMBR changes, it doesn’t matter to the argument I gave.Furthermore, Con drops some of the evidence I offered in support of the argument. I mentioned an experiment which confirms the CMBR as an ether:The following experiment is mentioned in Einstein, Relativity, and Absolute Simultaneity: ‘‘’Smoot, Gorenstein, and Muller discovered that the Earth is moving relative to the radiation background with a velocity of 390+60 km/sec in the direction of the constellation Leo. They comment, ‘’The cosine anisotropy is most readily interpreted as being due to the motion of the Earth relative to the rest frame of the cosmic blackbody radiation-what Peebles calls the ‘new aether drift’’’.’’’Con had no answer to this experimental confirmation, and thus drops it.In my last round, I provided experimental falsification of Einstein’s interpretation. Alain Aspect’s experiments with Bell’s Inequalities establish absolute simultaneity, and this is supported by quotes from physicists Lee Smolin, S. J. Prokhovnik, and John Bell, as well as the philosopher of science Karl Popper.I apologize if this is offensive, but Con’s statements in regards to this are just too vague to give an answer to. He states that quantum entanglement transcends space and time. In what sense do they transcend space and time? Con doesn’t make any effort to define what he means by ‘’transcendens space and time’’. Furthermore, he represents the article as stating the consensus in physics, but it’s written by a reporter named Geoff Brumfiel, and he certainly isn't a physicist. The only thing about quantum mechanics transcending space and time is an indirect quote from physicist Terence Rudoplh. Indirect meaning that the report didn't put quotes around it, but is offering an interpretation of his comments. Even then, one physicist is hardly enough to establish a consensus. Con's vagueness hurts him because he doesn't articulate why 'quantum mechanics transcends space and time' is supposed to entail 'Pro's arguments are false". Con fails to link the information provided with my argument.As for virtual particles, Con says they aren't fully real, and references an article to support his claim. However, this is based on the fallacy of equivocation. When Con says that virtual particles aren't real, he means to say that they don't exist. When the article mentions a thing being real, it refers to a different meaning of the word. In this case, the word real means that the particle is the result of an excitation of the underlying quantum field. He is confusing the common sense definition of real with a technical term in physics, therefore committing an informal fallacy.Con attacks the argument as a fringe view in physics. However, as the historian Richard Carrier once noted, we can reasonably doubt the consensus on an issue if the conclusions are deduced from flawed methodology. As I showed in Section I, there are very good reasons to doubt the methodology employed. Therefore, we can reasonably doubt the consensus in this case.Con makes a few more passing remarks. He says that something isn't true just because Einstein said so. I'm genuinely curious where I made that argument. He also asks us what reasons we have to think Einstein was right. I'm not sure about the technical reasons behind Einstein's quote, but as a world-reknowned physicist, it is rational for us to agree with it, even if we don't understand the reasons. He also asks why quantum effects like virtual particles are significant when regarding large regions of space, but he doesn't explain why we need to make this assumption in order for the argument to go through.For these reasons, the resolution is affirmed.ValeReferences[1] Einstein, Relativity, and Absolute Simultaneity, pg 3