A Neo-Lorentzian Ether Exists

I: The Downfall of Einstein’s Philosophy of ScienceAgain, irrelevant. Whether or not Einstein made certain philosophical assumptions when creating his theory is irrelevant to the only metric we have when determining whether or not something is actually valid, which is experimental evidence. Relativity is a physical theory, not a philosophical one, so arguing on philosophical ground, such as the fact that we intuitively have a sense of the present, is meaningless.Moreover, even if it was relevant, the initial philosophical assumptions wouldn't matter--only philosophical assumptions that are necessary for the theory to be valid would matter. For instance, if an ancient Greek proposed evolution under the grounds that the perfection seen in nature could only be reached by something closer to an analogue to a democratic process rather than an autocratic one, the philosophical assumptions would be wrong in the extreme--but the hypothesis would still be correct. The most we could say was that the hypothesis was unsupported by the arugments the aforementioned ancient Greek made.However, relativity is not only backed up by philosophical arguments, it is backed up by empirical arguments. Ultimately, that is what is important for a theory in science--not whether or not it agrees with our intuition or whether or not our language necessitates an objective present. We know that time dilation is a thing[1], whether or not our language says it is is irrelevant. Some languages have no numbers.[2] Does that mean that numbers do not actually exist? 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? Moreover, does Pro really think that Lorentz ether theory--which was based, one must remember, on the idea of a lumineferous ether; that is why it is called an ether--is insulated from the same criticism?[3]Pro tries to argue that Lorentz ether theory isn't the same as it was a long time ago. Very well. But the same is true of relativity; it has changed over the years and been modified in accordance with new findings and new thoughts.II: Experimental Vindications of the Neo-Lorentzian InterpretationIf Pro is unfamiliar with the metric expansion of space, he should familiarize himself with it. Most cosmological models involve an expanding universe, and there is observational evidence in the form of redshift that is consistent with metric expansion.[4] That is what I am referring to.In any event, the cosmological background radiation is useless as an absolute reference frame because, as the background radiation is just photons, it is altered by gravity (black holes, gravititational lensing, et cetera). Observers in radically different locations would not be able to agree on the cosmic background radiation, therefore. Moreover, as the observable universe is larger than the Hubble Volume,[5] parts of the background radiation will not be visible later in time--across temporal gaps, the background radiation does not remain isotropic either.It is also worth noting that the Neo-Lorenztian ether is supposed to be a preferred reference frame... and the idea of using the cosmic background radiation as a reference frame in no way contradicts relativity.[6]Pro cites, as evidence of the ether, a book written by a Christian apologist and a philosopher that quotes the source. I would ask for the book's source; given that many of Craig's arguments emerge from his assumption/need to believe that there is a deity in line with his beliefs, I'm rather suspicious of quotations he may make. Near as I can tell, though, what Craig is citing is a paper written in 1977.[7]Pro continues to argue that entanglement violates relativity, by quoting some people as they are quoted in a book written by aforementioned people. But in reality, things are a bit more complicated.[8][9] Modern analysis of entanglement do not have it breaking relativity as a necessary feature.My point regarding Einstein is that just because he thinks his theory will fail because of something doesn't mean it actually will, especially since scientific theories change over time. See entanglement.References1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://theamericanscholar.org...3. Whittaker, Edmund Taylor (1951), A History of the theories of aether and electricity Vol. 1: The classical theories (2. ed.), London: Nelson 386ff4. Hubble, Edwin, "A Relation between Distance and Radial Velocity among Extra-Galactic Nebulae" (1929) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp. 168-173 (Full article, PDF)5. http://en.wikipedia.org...6. http://www.astro.ubc.ca...7. http://www.muller.lbl.gov...8. http://www.sciencedaily.com...