Is Lorentz Ether Theory a Viable Alternative to General Relativity?

[Tam Hunt]

ZapperZ, can you send me some good papers on this?

In the meantime, please do look at the Cahill links I sent you. I believe you may find that your objections are addressed in his work.

I'll need to dig into this a bit further, but I suspect we will find that GPS gets away with assuming anisotropy of light speed because we're dealing with relatively very short distances. I'll have to look into LIGO a bit more before I can opine further.

Cahill does in fact address GPS issues in his 2005 book - but good luck getting a copy. I had to wait a while for an interlibrary loan and it's not available on Google books.

But thank the Lord for arxiv.org. I just searched there and here's a link to a paper from Cahill addressing his process physics (which is based on the conclusion that absolute space is detectable and detected) and the GPS:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0309/0309016v2.pdf

 

[ZapperZ]

How are you able to buy something using "quantum foam" and use that as a valid argument against empirical evidence? I don't get it. Would you also entertain someone using, say, cosmic strings or axions and use those as "proofs" that you are wrong?

I've read this painful thread, and I think it is you who need to sit back and reexamine all these things that you somehow have convinced yourself to be valid and figure what what exact it is that you found so convincing. Your highlight of this "paper" in trying to convince me just backfired.

Zz.

 

[Dale]

3) The same evidence and conclusions could be used, in a strict approach, to falsify LET - as Lorentz himself formulated it, as you have pointed out. This is the case b/c under LET, there is no way to experimentally confirm the inconstancy of the speed of light, even though it is assumed that in actuality the speed of light is inconstant.

I cannot tell for certain, but it seems that you are finally conceeding the point that LET and SR are experimentally indistinguishable. If so, then please ignore the following.

I have answered your challenge about six times now.

You have yet to answer it even once. You have not proposed one single experimental measurement and worked out quantitatively what Lorentz and Einstein would predict differently.

 

[Tam Hunt]

Dale, I said I was done but I'll respond one last time: you seem to have a mental block that stops you from reading what I write in full. #4 in my response directly addresses both your points.

 

[Tam Hunt]

ZapperZ, have you read either the quantum foam paper or the longer "Process Physics" paper? If so, I'd appreciate your substantive responses, not dismissive comments without substance.

As I've said previously in this thread, I'm not yet sold on Cahill's arguments. Rather, I'm seeking substantive comments from others who have reviewed his work in detail - while being openminded and fair in such review. Everything I've written re Cahill's work has been couched in conditional phrases ("if").

 

[lalbatros]

Tam,

Please be serious and avoid such kind of answer:

lalbatross,

In your follow up re SR and inertial frames, you seem to be confusing "inertial frames" with "inertial forces." These are very different beasts and have limited relations to each other.

I explained you my point already three times.
I do it once more:

In Newtonian physics, when you change from a inertial frame to a non inertial frame, the laws of motion do not stay invariant. Instead, you have additional forces, called "inertial forces" that appear in the equations.

If, in this statement above, you still think I don't know the difference between inertial frame and inertial force, then you should learn classical mechanics before talking about relativity.
Obviously a frame and a force are different beast.
Would you think a confusion would even be possible?
But you should also know that there is a relation between "inertial frame" and "inertial forces".
This is just what I explained you and that I repeated once more here above.

Again, I repeat it, saying that "SR covers ONLY inertial frames" makes not sense or at least it is a very unprecise statement.
Again, what can be done in Newtonian mechanics can also be done in special relativity.
With special relativity, you can analyse the motion in an accelerated frame if you want to do so, like in Newtonian mechanics.
If you think Einstein said the contrary, then you did not understand his saying.

The difference between SR and GR is that in GR the laws of motion have the same form in all frames, which is not the case in SR. In SR you will see "inertial forces" poping up when in an non-inertial frame. Also the gravitational field theory is invariant in GR, while this makes a fundamental difficulty in SR. However, the difficulties of SR with gravity does not prevent it from being a excellent approximation as long as V/mc²<<1, using any frame of reference as long as you do it properly.

 

[lalbatros]

Why do I prefer SR over LET?

Tam,

... LET states that the speed of light will APPEAR invariant to all observers, not that it is actually invariant. ... Cahill's work is potentially ground-breaking because he, Miller, and others have shown that we can in fact detect absolute motion by changing to gas-mode interferometers or with fiber optic experiments.

You still need to explain what difference between LET and SR would make a fiber optic sensible to absolute motion while vacuum interferometry could not. How could that be possible, when the electrodynamics and mechanics of the two theories are the same and are Lorentz-invariant? Please, write down the equations of electrodynamics and the equations of motion for both LET and SR (or give a link). Then point us to this difference.

As I told you, if you could detect an absolute frame of reference by any means, this would break SR as well as LET, because all the laws of physics in LET and SR are the same. If you think I am wrong on this point, then explain me where the differences are.

But now, based on my arguments, why do I prefer SR over LET?
For sure because of this useless hypothesis in LET.
It is useless because it is added and then canceled by design.
On the contrary, SR is based on a representation of the facts with as few additional hypothesis as possible.
We even know today that the hypothesis of the constancy of light was not absolutely necessary.
Removing it would simply leave us with an unknown constant in the Lorentz transformation.
The end result of SR is the Lorentz transformation obtained from simple facts.
Why would we need more?
In the end, the Lorentz transformation is a relation between spacetime in different frames.
Some do not like it, but the facts remain.

 

[Tam Hunt]

lalbatros, I apologize if I was overly dismissive. I'm having trouble squaring what you're writing re SR and non-inertial (accelerating frames) and my reading of SR and GR. Admittedly, I'm self-educated on these issues, so perhaps I'm simply not getting what you're saying because it seems to directly contradict what I've learned from the original sources from Einstein, Minkowski, Lorentz, etc.

It is quite clear - as I've explained - that for Einstein, at least, SR only applied to inertial frames. That said, perhaps what you're saying is reflective of a more recent understanding that goes beyond Einstein's original understanding?

That said, could you send me some arxiv.org papers or books explaining how SR can apply to accelerating frames?

 

[ZapperZ]

ZapperZ, have you read either the quantum foam paper or the longer "Process Physics" paper? If so, I'd appreciate your substantive responses, not dismissive comments without substance.

As I've said previously in this thread, I'm not yet sold on Cahill's arguments. Rather, I'm seeking substantive comments from others who have reviewed his work in detail - while being openminded and fair in such review. Everything I've written re Cahill's work has been couched in conditional phrases ("if").

I'm an experimentalist. I had to stop reading that paper because he's using non-verified physics to explain possibly non-existent phenomenon. Just how many unicorns does he need? And then he wonders why he isn't taken more seriously? SERIOUSLY?!

There is just so many "if's" that one is willing to accept. After that, it becomes so speculative that you might as well make things up. And this is what you've spent your time on and gave all this effort?

Oh wait, maybe that's why this is in the Philosophy forum rather than the SR/GR forum!

Zz.

 

[Dale]

Dale, I said I was done but I'll respond one last time: you seem to have a mental block that stops you from reading what I write in full. #4 in my response directly addresses both your points.

Your #4 neither proposes an experiment with quantitative predictions by which SR and LET can be empirically distinguished nor does it conceed that it is impossible to do so.

 

[lalbatros]

Tam,

...
That said, could you send me some arxiv.org papers or books explaining how SR can apply to accelerating frames?

It is difficult to find references on this topic, because it is totally trivial.
As I explained you, SR extends NM, and NM can do it, therefore SR can do it also.
However, I was lucky to Google this page to answer your request:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html

As far as SR and GR are involved, I am also mainly autodidact.
I learned nuclear engineering and physics engineering.
SR had only a tiny place in our thick course on electrodynamics.
Thereafter I read "Gravitation by MTW" and "The Classical Theory of Fields by Landau".

If you are willing to learn physics by yourself, I strongly advise you to use the best references available. Reading Cahill and other foamy references will bring you nowhere. It is absolutely necessary to build on the rock instead of the foam.

If instead you want to lose more of your time, you can still read this one:

http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/HPS13.pdf

hopefully, you will see this is a house of cards built on foamy foundations.
Read the lies of pages 67 or 70 for example.

 

[Tam Hunt]

ZapperZ, thank for you admitting you haven't even read the references I sent. Yet again, another example of why paradigms are so hard to change - we become calcified, despite abundant evidence that SR and GR rest on shaky foundations.

Check out the last two editions of Scientific American. It's not a journal, of course, but it is an indication of the zeitgeist of various fields, primarily physics and cosmology. The last two cover stories question Einstein's theories (correctly, in my view). This indicates to me that we are on the verge of the next major paradigm shift. Will Cahill be part of that? I don't know. But I do know his theories are interesting and worth at least reading before dismissing.

Substance instead of rhetoric mi amigo.

And, in case you don't know, the term "quantum foam" is commonly used in quantum mechanics. It represents in most usages the vacuum energy, which in the mainstream interpretation of QM is the seething mass of virtual particles in the vacuum - a newer name for the ether. Check out Nobel Prize-winner Frank Wilczek's book The Lightness of Being on these topics. Perhaps a Nobel Prize will induce you to read this work.

 

[Tam Hunt]

lalbatros, thanks for the links. Ironically, the first link you sent supports both your point of view and my point of view. It discusses the possibility of using a metric tensor to adapt SR to accelerating frames. This is a similar approach to that used in GR, as the link describes.

However, the piece says explicitly that SR does NOT include gravity, even in this ad hoc approach that the link and you have previously described.

So it seems that I will concede the point that SR CAN be used for accelerating frames, despite its creator's own views at the time of creation, but that it CANNOT include gravity even in its modified form. Tally: 1/2 a point for lalbatros and 1/2 a point for Tam.

Again, SR does NOT extend Newtonian mechanics in all situations. It extends NM in a narrowly defined way. One more time: read Einstein's 1916 book. He explains fully why he developed SR and GR.

Why are you suggesting Cahill is "lying" in his paper? This is a very serious charge and I would advise you not to make it lightly. You will need strong evidence to back up such a charge.

 

[Tam Hunt]

Dale, I urge you to step back from what you think you know. One LAST time: SR and LET are not simply about the Lorentz transformation equations. With this understanding you will see I have responded to your points numerous times.

 

[Dmitry67]

Tam, I had just read the whole thread (it is fun!) and I do not see any places where you show any difference between LET and SR.

The only point I see (correct me if I am wrong) is 'Yes, LET and SR provide the identical results for all observers, but the underlying reality is different'

As a proponent of MUH (Mathematical Universe Hypotesis) for me it is een easier then for the others to say that if 2 theories are mathematically equivalent then they are the same theory.

MUH simplifies everything and get rids of many misleading questions like 'ok, here is an equation for a wavefunction, but what is actually behind it? I see, time is a coordinate, but what is actually made from? Here are QM equations, but tell me, are particles real? Do virtual particles exist?"

For me all these questions lead to nowhere. It reminds me about an explanation of consciousness using a Cartesian theater: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_theater

All these these questions about the 'reality' is one big "cartesian theater" in physics. An attempt to find tooth wheels and rubber bends behind the curtain of that carthesian theater. And this thread is a good example.

 

[Tam Hunt]

Dmitry, thanks for joining the discussion!

I've addressed this point many times in this thread: LET assumes an ether as the cause of apparent relativistic effects. If we can show that there is absolute space/ether, as Cahill, Miller, etc., have attempted, we then strongly distinguish LET from SR.

If we read LET very narrowly, and accept that the ether is not detectable, as Lorentz himself believed, due to length contraction in the direction of motion of any apparatus built to detect the ether, I will agree with you that the two are indistinguishable. But this is a VERY narrow reading of LET.

Lorentz postulated the ether as real and light speed as isotropic. Einstein postulated the ether was not real and that light speed is anisotropic. Accordingly, evidence favoing Lorentz's postulates over Einstein's is pretty definitive.

We can, however, avoid this parsing by simply relabeling the theory "neo-LET" or "modern ether theory (MET)". Under MET, we accept (if Cahill, Miller, etc., got it right) that we CAN detect absolute space/ether. Thus, SR is falsified and MET and neo-LET win and Lorentz was vindicated.

 

[Dmitry67]

1. If we can show that there is absolute space/ether

2. If we read LET very narrowly, and accept that the ether is not detectable, as Lorentz himself believed, due to length contraction in the direction of motion of any apparatus built to detect the ether, I will agree with you that the two are indistinguishable. But this is a VERY narrow reading of LET.

3. Lorentz postulated the ether as real and light speed as isotropic. Einstein postulated the ether was not real and that light speed is anisotropic. Accordingly, evidence favoing Lorentz's postulates over Einstein's is pretty definitive.

Could you clarify the meaning of "show" in the first sentence?
Show experimantally? I guess it is not what you mean because it contradicts with what you wrote in 2.

I don't understand what you mean by 'narrow reading'. But based on what you say, Lorentz had a narrow understanding of his own theory :)

3. There are no experiments which can check what is actually REAL and what is not. All we have - numbers on the detectors, tracks, measurements. THen we make conclusions. Again, what evidence are you talking about?

So you agreeed that these 2 theories are indistinguishable. Good. And PERIOD. "Reading" is a part of literature, not physics.

Again, I see all discussions about "what is actually real" empty and misleading.

Let me put it that way: do you believe that our space is made of cold dead ether? I think either itself actually consists of pink dancing elephants. I call this theory PDE. As elephants somehow comply to the Lorentz transformation, then we have now 3 theories giving the same results: SR, LET and PDE.

Why your LET is better then my PDE? Can you see that ether MUST be REALLY made of something? :)

 

[Tam Hunt]

Dmitry, I'm not sure why this is such a difficult point for people to grasp. One more time:
Lorentz postulated that light speed was constant with respect to only one frame of reference: absolute space/ether.

Einstein postulated the opposite: light speed was constant for any observer in any inertial frame.

Experimental evidence demonstrating that light speed is not constant strongly supports Lorentz over Einstein.

We have evidence that appears to support Lorentz's view.

The difference between Lorentz's understanding and the neo-Lorentzian view is that some physicists, Miller, Cahill, etc., claim they have figured out how to detect absolute space/ether.

The question then becomes: are Miller, Cahill, etc.'s data and conclusions valid?

Period.

 

[Dmitry67]

1. Lorentz postulated that light speed was constant with respect to only one frame of reference: absolute space/ether.

Einstein postulated the opposite: light speed was constant for any observer in any inertial frame.

Experimental evidence demonstrating that light speed is not constant strongly support Lorentz over Einstein.

Exactly, but he also postulated that moving objects in ether become shorter. So it is consistent with the observations and consistent with SR.

So tell me, what is a difference between light passing length L at speed c or light passing at 0.5c the 'contracted' object of L/2?

I don't see any difference - the results are identical for the observers.

So there is no any experimantal evidence.

 

[Tam Hunt]

Dmitry, as I've written repeatedly in this thread: LET and SR include far more than the Lorentz transformations, which predict length contraction and time dilation. The postulates I just mentioned are KEY parts of both theories. If experimental data show that the postulates for one theory are undermined, the theory as a whole is undermined. It doesn't get any more clear than this.

 

[lalbatros]

Tam,

I am not doing a talk contest here:

lalbatros, thanks for the links. Ironically, the first link you sent supports both your point of view and my point of view. It discusses the possibility of using a metric tensor to adapt SR to accelerating frames. This is a similar approach to that used in GR, as the link describes.

However, the piece says explicitly that SR does NOT include gravity, even in this ad hoc approach that the link and you have previously described.

So it seems that I will concede the point that SR CAN be used for accelerating frames, despite its creator's own views at the time of creation, but that it CANNOT include gravity even in its modified form. Tally: 1/2 a point for lalbatros and 1/2 a point for Tam.

Again, SR does NOT extend Newtonian mechanics in all situations. It extends NM in a narrowly defined way. One more time: read Einstein's 1916 book. He explains fully why he developed SR and GR.

Why are you suggesting Cahill is "lying" in his paper? This is a very serious charge and I would advise you not to make it lightly. You will need strong evidence to back up such a charge.

What I have said is clear and reasonable.
I simply claim:

- within SR, you can go from an inertial frame to a non-inertial frame, just as you would do in NM
- in other words: you can change variables and get the equivalent maths, just trivial
- this change of frame doesn't leave the equations invariant because SR is not generally-invariant, trivial again
- in SR you can analyse the orbits in gravitational fields just as you would in NM, ...
- I never said SR brings new gravity physics w/r to NM, this would require more discussion
- FYI, SR gets a drift of Mercury's perihelion of 7", while GR get 43" and NM gets 0"

Concerning the Cahill case, I don't know what "lying" means scientifically.
I can assume he is honest, considering that his attitude deserves him first.
What is for sure is that he is repeating his bombast at nauseum without any consideration for the overwhelming arguments against his point of view. Looks like he thinks that repeating is convincing. If he would really like to be convincing, he should discuss openly the error bars in the MMX or in the Miller experiment in detail and contrast his calculations with the many opposite claims.

 

[Dmitry67]

1 Dmitry, as I've written repeatedly in this thread: LET and SR include far more than the Lorentz transformations, which predict length contraction and time dilation. The postulates I just mentioned are KEY parts of both theories.

2 If experimental data show that the postulates for one theory are undermined, the theory as a whole is undermined. It doesn't get any more clear than this.

1 Please quote it again or please provide a post #

2 Gotcha! here is a source of all your confusion.
Experiments can not prove or dissaprove the postulates (directly).
Postulates are not experimantally verifiable.
Experiments can be compared to the predictions of the theories.

Postulates -> Predictions <-comparison-> experimental data.

When predictions are the same then postulates of one theories can not be dissaproved.

So when you are talking for example 'speed of light', you should clearly understand that in LET there are 2 different speeds of light: fundamental (to the absolute ether) in some abstract coordinate space (probably also absolute) and the apparent speed of light, measured by an observer by dividing his time to his distance.

In LET both distance and c change in the manner so the apparent speed of light is still c to any observer. It makes impossible to tell LET from SR based on the experimental data.

 

[Tam Hunt]

Dmitry, please read back through my posts in this thread. I've addressed your points three or four times at least.

 

[Dale]

One LAST time: SR and LET are not simply about the Lorentz transformation equations.

Experimentally they are.

You fail, once again, to propose any possible experimental measurement by which SR and LET could be quantitatively distinguished.

 

[Tam Hunt]

Dale, you're simply wrong on this. Evidence in favor of absolute space/ether is evidence in favor of neo-LET because it falsifies SR's postulates. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

 

[Dale]

Evidence in favor of absolute space/ether is evidence in favor of neo-LET because it falsifies SR's postulates.

Such evidence would also falsify LET, not verify it. I think you know that which is why you specified "neo-LET" instead.

So, to be clear, do you finally agree that there is no possible experimental measurement that could distinguish between SR and LET? (not "neo-LET" or MET etc.)

 

[Tam Hunt]

Dale, as I've also written many times in this thread, under an EXTREMELY narrow reading of LET, evidence for absolute space/ether would falsify LET as well as SR. But this is taking pedantics to a silly extreme. The whole point of LET is that ether is the basis for length contraction and apparent time dilation. Evidence in favor of absolute space/ether should, by any reasonable observer who is not trying to score points in an online forum, be considered supporting evidence for LET - as well as neo-LET and MET.

 

[Dale]

OK, since you have finally clearly conceeded the point re: the experimental equivalence of LET and SR, then let us proceed.

What are the testable equations of your neo-LET or MET (i.e. the equations that are used by the theory to quantitatively predict the results of experimental measurements) and how do they:
1) reduce to the Lorentz transform in all of the experiments that are considered http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html"
2) quantitatively differ from the Lorentz transform in potential new experimental measurements

This is the burden that all new scientific theories must meet.

 

[Dmitry67]

Dmitry, please read back through my posts in this thread. I've addressed your points three or four times at least.

Before entering this thread I had carefully read all the posts.
So we are talking about something you see as important and I see as not important
So "reading again" won't help until you stress what exactly you think is important (not in a way "your, guys, reading is too narrow)

 

[lalbatros]

Tam:

This is from Cahill (http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/HPS13.pdf):

The collapse of the older non-process paradigm is also exposing dramatic human
aspects of the historical development of that paradigm, for the failure of that paradigm
is actually traceable to numerous bungles and flawed human behaviour. Indeed some
of that history is shockingly scandalous, and in particular the ongoing behaviour of the
physics profession is very disturbing - basically the non-process paradigm has acquired
the status of a belief system, as distinct from a science, and as such is defended with
ruthless and unscrupulous behaviour. For many the non-process paradigm is now beyond
challenge, and both old and new experiments that contradicted that paradigm are simply
to be ignored and even suppressed. Indeed the many true successes of the old paradigm
have ultimately led to nothing more than stagnation and decay, and much current work in
theoretical physics has degenerated to spurious mathematical generalisations of a failed
paradigm.

Bad sellers can only sell bad products by lying about the value of competition.

Tam, maybe you could be interrested by Roy Frieden (1,2).
Frieden derived physics from information theory, like Cahill.
He got only mainstream results without much physics and a lot of "mise en scène".
Reminds me Cahill a little bit, but less bombast.

(1)http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/reviews/physics-from-fisher-info/
(2) https://www.amazon.com/dp/052163167X/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[Dmitry67]

Just noticed 2 quotes:

Einstein (1934) was clear that there was no need to talk of an aether:

"Physical space and the aether are only different terms for the same thing: fields are physical states of space. If no particular state of motion can be ascribed to the aether, there do not seem to be any grounds for introducing it as an entity of a special sort alongside space." -- Einstein in "Mein Weltbild" (Amsterdam, Querido, 1934)
In this regard Lorentz' earlier quote (1927) is also notable:

"As to the aether (to return to it once more), though the conception of it has certain advantages, it must be admitted that if Einstein had maintained it he certainly would not have given us his theory, and so we are very grateful to him for not having gone along the old-fashioned roads." -- H. A. Lorentz, "Problems of Modern Physics; a course of lectures delivered in the California Institute of Technology," Edited by H. Bateman, Ginn_, 1927.

 

[Dale]

Before this thread dies I just wanted to post a little bit about how science works, since it seems to be a point of confusion.

The scientific method is, at its core, a method for using empirical evidence to acquire knowledge. It is usually characterized as an iterative process with the following steps: theory, hypothesis, test, report. The test is the empirical evidence and is considered the final arbiter on the correctness of the theory, but the theory itself is not directly testable. The hypothesis forms the link between the theory and the test. Multiple theories may produce the same hypothesis, in which case the same test will verify or falsify all such theories together. The report is an important part of the process because it allows the community as a whole to profit from the new knowledge, and it allows others to repeat the experiment thus confirming good results and culling bad ones.

Occasionally a radically new theory is developed which is substantially different, conceptually, from a previous established theory. However, because the established theory itself has been established on the basis of correctly predicting experimental results, the new theory must agree with the old theory in all of those hypotheses where the old theory has already been experimentally verified. In essence, this is the reason that classical Newtonian mechanics is still being taught. Although Einstein's view of the world is conceptually very different from Newton's, they predict the same things in the limit where v<<c. Thus, Einstein really did not take away from Newton, but rather expanded upon his foundation.

Each paradigm-changing theory has followed this pattern of expanding on the existing theories. But for some reason, relativity attracts a set of critics who wish not to expand on it but to abolish it altogether. That is simply is not going to happen, there is too much empirical evidence supporting it. I don't know what the theory of tomorrow will look like, but without a doubt it will reduce to relativity in some appropriate limit, and relativity will still be taught and used in that limit.

 

[Tam Hunt]

Dale, I don't disagree with the large majority of your last post - and I'm fully familiar with how the scientific process works. Where I don't agree is with your view that relativity (particularly general) is empirically adequate. Read a bit about MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics), MOG (modified gravity), and give Cahill's Process Physics an objective chance. Better yet, read Lee Smolin's The Trouble With Physics, an excellent overview of today's problems in physics and some suggestions as to why this generation of physicists has yet to produce any ground-breaking discoveries. The main culprit: groupthink and a refusal to look beyond current dogma. This thread has illustrated these tendencies very well.

One last time: the special relativistic phenomena of length contraction and time dilation are fairly well-supported empirically and LET and SR agree on these phenomena. They disagree in a very key way: LET postulating the ether as the cause of these phenomena and SR postulating the constancy of the speed of light and a consequent malleability of time and space as the cause of these phenomena. Evidence that supports the existence of the ether is good support for LET over SR.

More importantly, a generalized LET - an alternative theory of space and gravity, essentially - may be a good approach to resolving the known anomalies with GR, such as faster than predicted universal expansion, different galactic rotation velocities than predicted by GR (with dark energy and dark matter postulated in GR to resolved these two anomalies), Pioneer spacecraft anomalies and borehole anomalies, to name just a few.

When we add in the philosophically disturbing results of SR and GR in terms of time becoming an illusion, as well as free will, we are presented with a compelling set of empirical and philosophical reasons to look for alternatives to GR. Or, at the least, a substantial revision.

All this said, it is quite likely that any replacement or evolution of GR will not reject the observational evidence in favor of SR and GR - that, I agree, is going too far because there is a lot of good support for these theories. Rather, a replacement theory or an extending theory will do exactly as you suggest: it will "fix" SR and GR while respecting the empirical evidence in favor of the key predictions of these theories. For what it's worth, here's a passage from my latest draft of a chapter in my book on space and gravity (email me if you'd like to see the whole chapter):

The state of physics today, then, is not good, despite its voluminous historic successes: there is much reason to doubt the dominant interpretation of quantum mechanics (despite the very good experimental support for the predictions of quantum mechanics), known as the Copenhagen Interpretation; the completeness or accuracy of Einstein’s special and general relativity (this is a minority view, as most physicists remain strong advocates of the Einstein/Minkowski interpretation of relativity); and the merits of string theory for reconciling general relativity and quantum theory.

In this chapter, I describe how the prevailing theory of space and gravity is incomplete at best. I also describe an approach to a theory of space and gravity that resolves, or at least points the way toward resolving, many of the problems described above. As we shall see, the concept of an ether, which in this formulation is the foundation for both space and matter, while generally thought to be a discredited concept, is in fact very much a part of modern physics, though it is generally known by other labels, such as the “vacuum,” the “metric field,” or “spacetime.” Hendrik Lorentz, a Nobel Prize-winning contemporary of Einstein's, provided the basis for the physical theories advocated in this and the next chapter. David Bohm, an American physicist who contributed substantially to developing quantum mechanics, looms large in this chapter. John Bell, an Irish physicist who also made seminal contributions to quantum theory, provides key insights for the conclusions reached herein. And Reginald Cahill, a maverick Australian physicist, stands out for his provocative ideas on “process physics,” which spring explicitly from Whitehead's process philosophy.

What I describe in this and the next three chapters is a “new new physics.” The new physics consists of the two pillars of 20th Century physics: Einstein’s general relativity and quantum field theory (the “old” physics is, of course, Newtonian/Galilean physics). As discussed, the key problem remaining in theoretical physics is a unification of these currently incompatible 20th Century theories. The “new new physics” consists of, essentially, a realization that quantization of the physical world is not limited to matter and energy – it also reflects the real structure of space and time. Space and time, however, are themselves produced by a quantizable non-material ether or ground of being. For this reason, I describe this new synthesis as the “modern ether theory.”

The modern ether theory (MET) continues Whitehead's philosophical project, which he was forced to abandon with his natural death in the 1940s. The new new physics is not widely accepted – to the contrary, many components of the physical theories I describe in the following chapters are highly controversial. But it is certainly possible, given the combination of compelling philosophical and physical arguments in favor of it, that in the next few decades the new new physics will become accepted as the better story about the nature of the physical universe.

 

[Tam Hunt]

Dmitry, Einstein and the ether is a topic of the book by the same name by Ludwik Kostro. It's a great read. Here's a brief history of Einstein and the ether, from my book:

Einstein’s views on the ether changed dramatically throughout the course of his career.1 His 1905 paper on special relativity boldly proclaimed the ether to be a “superfluous” concept. It was in fact his entire objective, in developing special relativity, to extend Galilean (mechanical) relativity to electromagnetism, thereby eliminating the need for a “privileged” frame of reference. In other words, we needn’t worry about what is the “correct” or truly stationary frame of reference in relativity because all uniformly-moving (inertial) frames of reference are equally valid, as is the case for inertial frames in Newtonian/Galilean mechanics. While this concept, if it is true, obviously has much utility, Einstein’s own thinking evolved to the point that he realized that some type of ether was theoretically necessary after all.

In 1916, Einstein published his general theory of relativity, which asserted a very different conception of space and time (as discussed in the last chapter). In general relativity, space has no independent existence; rather, it is a consequence of the various fields that are ontologically fundamental. Shortly after his momentous general relativity paper was published, he exchanged letters with Lorentz, one of his mentors, on the topic of the ether. Lorentz argued consistently that some notion of the ether was necessary. Einstein conceded eventually that indeed a non-material ether was necessary to explain inertia and acceleration. Einstein first described his “new ether” in a 1916 letter to Lorentz:

I agree with you that the general theory of relativity is closer to the ether hypothesis than the special theory. This new ether theory, however, would not violate the principle of relativity, because the state of this … ether would not be that of a rigid body in an independent state of motion, but every state of motion would be a function of position determined by material processes.2

Einstein also wrote in a 1919 letter to Lorentz:

It would have been more correct if I had limited myself, in my earlier publications, to emphasizing only the non-existence of an ether velocity, instead of arguing the total non-existence of the ether, for I can see that with the word ether we say nothing else than that space has to be viewed as a carrier of physical qualities.3

From 1916 to 1918, Einstein was in the thick of discussions with a number of colleagues about the nature of space and the ether, with respect to general relativity. As Isaacson recounts in his wonderful biography, Einstein’s thinking changed dramatically during this period. In 1918, he published a response to critics of special and general relativity and attempted a refutation of the Twin Paradox (also discussed in the last chapter). In this dialogue, Einstein writes, with the Critic posing the question and a hypothetical “relativist” responding:
Critic:
[H]ow does the diseased man of theoretical physics fare, the Aether, that many of you have declared to be definitely dead?
Relativist:
Its fortunes have taken some turns, and overall one cannot say that it is dead now. Prior to Lorentz it existed as an all-pervasive fluid, as a gas-like fluid, and other than that in the most diverse forms of being, different from author to author. With Lorentz it became rigid, and embodied the resting coordinate system, respectively a privileged state of motion in the world. According to the special theory of relativity there was no longer a privileged state of motion, this meant a denial of the Aether in this sense of the preceding theories. For if there would be an Aether, then in each space-time point there would have to be a particular state of motion, that would have to play a part in optics. There is no such privileged state of motion, as has been taught to us by the special theory of relativity, and that is why there is no Aether in the old sense. The general theory of relativity also does not know a privileged state of motion in a point, that one could vaguely interpret as velocity of an Aether. However, while according to the special theory of relativity a part of space without matter and without electromagnetic field seems to be characterized as absolutely empty, e. g. not characterized by any physical quantities, empty space in this sense has according to the general theory of relativity physical qualities which are mathematically characterized by the components of the gravitational potential, that determine the metrical behavior of this part of space as well as its gravitational field. One can quite well construe this circumstance in such a way that one speaks of an Aether, whose state of being is different from point to point. Only one must take care not to attribute to this Aether properties similar to properties of matter (for example every point a certain velocity).
In 1920, Einstein became more emphatic regarding the ether, recognizing explicitly that the ether was a necessary medium by which acceleration and rotation may be judged, independently of any particular frame of reference:

To deny ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view... Besides observable objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, must be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon as something real ... The conception of the ether has again acquired an intelligible content, although this content differs widely from that of the ether of the mechanical wave theory of light ... According to the general theory of relativity, space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, there exists an ether. Space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any spacetime intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the qualities of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.4

Einstein struggled with these ideas for much of his career, converting from a positivist in the Machian tradition early in his career – avoiding discussion of things that cannot be seen or measured, and thus to be considered outside the purview of physics – into a true realist. As a realist, Einstein argued during the middle and latter parts of his career that physics must attempt to describe what is truly real and not avoid discussion of logically necessary concepts, even if they cannot be detected – such as the ether. Isaacson writes:

To a pure proponent of Mach, or for that matter of Hume, the whole phrase “really to exist in nature” lacked clear meaning. In his special relativity theory, Einstein had avoided assuming the existence of such things as absolute time and absolute distance, because it seemed meaningless to say that they “really” existed in nature when they couldn’t be observed. But henceforth, during the more than four decades in which he would express his discomfort with quantum theory, he increasingly sounded like a scientific realist, someone who believed that an underlying reality existed in nature that was independent of our ability to observe or measure it.5

Einstein made this explicit in his 1920 speech in Leiden: “Besides observable objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, must be looked upon as real….” Einstein was, as we read in the more complete quote, referring to the ether. So for Einstein, even though the ether was considered to be undetectable, he deduced its existence because of its effects on observable matter through inertia, acceleration and rotation.

Isaacson states regarding Einstein’s late-career ruminations on the ether:

[Einstein] had to face the possibility that general relativity did not necessarily eliminate the concept of absolute motion, at least with respect to the metric of spacetime.
It was not exactly a retreat, nor was it a return to the nineteenth-century concept of the ether. But it was a more conservative way of looking at the universe, and it represented a break from the radicalism of Mach that Einstein had once embraced.
This clearly made Einstein uncomfortable.6

Einstein was most explicit in his thinking on the ether in a 1924 paper, in which he distinguished the ether of Newtonian mechanics and special relativity (contrary to the statement in his 1905 paper on special relativity which dismissed the mechanical ether theory as “superfluous”) with the ether of general relativity:

The inertia-producing property of [the Newtonian] ether, in accordance with classical mechanics, is precisely not to be influenced, either by the configuration of matter, or by anything else. For this reason, one may call it “absolute.” That something real has to be conceived as the cause for the preference of an inertial system over a non-inertial system is a fact that physicists have only come to understand in recent years …. Also, following the special theory of relativity, the ether was absolute, because its influence on inertia and light propagation was thought to be independent of physical influences of any kind … The ether of the general theory of relativity differs from that of classical mechanics of the special theory of relativity respectively, insofar as it is not “absolute,” but is determined in its locally variable properties by ponderable matter.7

In other words, ether as absolute space (or rest) is uninfluenced by matter (ponderable bodies). The ether of general relativity, in contrast, is influenced by matter. The now famous depiction of general relativity’s spacetime as akin to a trampoline with bowling balls or other heavy objects deforming its surface illustrates this mutual interaction between matter and the ether (spacetime) in general relativity.

Einstein labored mightily in the 1920s and 1930s to develop a unified field theory that would re-cast everything as a manifestation of fields. In 1934, he shifted his language explicitly away from “ether” to describing the properties of “physical space.” He stated: “Physical space and ether are only different terms for the same thing; fields are physical states of space. If no particular state of motion can be ascribed to the ether, there do not seem to be any grounds for introducing it as an entity of a special sort alongside space.”8

Einstein stated in his 1938 book, The Evolution of Physics: “This word ether has changed its meaning many times in the development of science. … Its story, by no means finished, is continued by the relativity theory.”9 The book itself is somewhat contradictory, however, with respect to the term, stating in an earlier section, with respect to the 19th Century concept of the ether as a mechanical medium: “[T]his is the moment to forget the ether completely and to try never to mention its name…. The omission of a word from our vocabulary is, of course, no remedy. Our troubles are indeed much too profound to be solved in this way!”10

His last published statements on the ether are contained in the 1952 additions to his 1916 popular book on relativity. Confusingly, Einstein returns to his earlier approach and describes the field concept as an irreducible element of the universe that does not require any material carrier such as the ether, without clarifying that he is using the term here to refer to the 19th Century concept of the ether, not the “new ether” that he long advocated as a necessary concept:

Max Jammer, in a Foreword to Kostro’s book, summarizes Einstein’s interesting and complicated history vis a vis the ether:

Einstein … acknowledged only three kinds of ether. But what Einstein called “ether” is no longer a rarified material medium that permeates all space, but rather the much more abstract geometrodynamic constituent of spacetime which determines the inertio-gravitational behavior of matter. … efore Einstein, space and time had played the role of merely a passive background in which events take place, but Einstein’s theories transformed them into active participants in the dynamics of the cosmos. We should also recall that Einstein created not only the special and general theory of relativity: during the last decades of his life he was preoccupied, albeit without success, with establishing a third theory, a unified theory that unites the gravitational with the electromagnetic forces. With each of these three theories he associated an “ether” in the above-mentioned sense. The distinction between the three kinds of “ether” finds its mathematical expression in the different properties of the corresponding gravitational potentials gμν of the fundamental metric tensor: the ether of the special theory of relativity is characterized by the condition that gμν = ŋμν, where the latter is the Minkowski metric, the ether of the general theory by gμν = gνμ of the Riemann metric, and the ether of the unified theory by the fact that gμν ≠ gνμ 11

 

[Dale]

Evidence that supports the existence of the ether is good support for LET over SR.

This is why talking with agenda-driven people like you is never productive. We have been over this point many times and you have ostensibly capitulated many times, yet you keep coming back to this same point over and over. If you are going to make this statement then you need to back it up: describe an experimental measurement by which the two could be distinguished.

Do you really want to go back down this road of discussion yet again?