Why in the world would Einstein suggest... 2

Why bother reading...

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 space-time intervals in the physical sense.

Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:

The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity [but] it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . It turns out that such matter exists...space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo

That theory was abandoned because there was no evidence of an aether whatsoever.

Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:

"The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether."

I know that both theories are saying the exact same thing, empirically speaking

Yeah, Ollie, like you I have no desire to spend one second critically analyzing a set of concepts. Why bother? There are plenty of people around to tell me just how, and just what, to think.

Do you know WHY you care so much, lay?

you don't really read, understand, or consider anything other than your own posts.

i tried to see if i could explain a complex matter to somebody without a clue. I failed that test

Einstein in 1920 wrote:

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 space-time intervals in the physical sense.

Every schoolboy knows enough to sneer at the ether concept, eh?

Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:

The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity [but] it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . .

a century has passed, a very fertile century in physics, too, and the concept was not found to correspond to anything precise, let alone discoverable.

The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity [but] it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum.

The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether.

and the concept was not found to correspond to anything precise, let alone discoverable

Then you quote an expert who flatly denies what you just said

Journal of Physics: Conference Series Volume 442 S A Emelyanov (2013)

Our observations directly contradict the no-aether Einstein's interpretation of special relativity together with the Minkowski's model of spacetime. However they are consistent with the aether-related Lorentz-Poincare's interpretation that allows absolute simultaneity. We thus strongly challenge the fundamental status of Lorentz invariance and hence break the basic argument against de Broglie-Bohm realistic quantum theory. We argue that both de Broglie-Bohm and Lorentz-Poincare theories are capable of providing a real synthesis of quantum and relativity theories.

Implications of an Absolute Simultaneity Theory for Cosmology and Universe Acceleration Edward T. Kipreos (2014 Dec 23)

An alternate Lorentz transformation, Absolute Lorentz Transformation (ALT), has similar kinematics to special relativity yet maintains absolute simultaneity in the context of a preferred reference frame.

In the Hafele & Keating experiment, the time dilation was absolute and directional [non-reciprocal], as the flying and ground-based clocks showed different elapsed times when brought together for side-by-side comparisons.

It is well established that the ECI [earth-centered inertial frame] functions as a PRF [preferred reference frame] for GPS satellites...The communication between GPS satellites and ground-based clocks continuously reveals the absolute and directional nature of the time dilation....AST predicts directional time dilation for inertial reference frames moving relative to a proposed PRF [2], [3], while SR predicts reciprocal time dilation.

Dark energy is proposed to drive the accelerated universe expansion, but its composition and mechanism of action are unknown....This study shows that a valid AST would have significant implications for cosmology, including universal time dilation, increased ages and distances for high-redshift objects, and a linear, non-accelerating rate of universe expansion during the most recent era.

Sir Karl Popper, reflecting on recent experiments violating Bell’s inequality, writes:

Quote:

It is only now, in the light of the new experiments stemming from Bell's work, that the suggestion of replacing Einstein's interpretation by Lorentz's can be made.... If we now have theoretical reasons from quantum theory for introducing absolute simultaneity, then we would have to go back to Lorentz's interpretation. (1982, 30)

According to Popper, the underdetermination between Lorentz and Einstein, which had persisted for more than sixty years, was finally broken with an experimentis crucis. Quantum non-locality, experimentally vindicated by Aspect’s violation of Bell’s inequality, demands absolute simultaneity.