The ether exists in relativity. See: Ether and the Theory of Relativity, Einstein
Relativity can exist within fet.
No it doesn't:
"The general attitude to this amongst physicists today is that although it is purely a matter of semantics, Einstein's comments stretch the word "aether" too far: it is argued that an "aether" with no mechanical properties doesn't correspond to the historical idea of aether, and so it is potentially misleading to apply this name to the spacetime field of general relativity"
"Today the idea of aether, what Albert Michelson called "one of the grandest generalizations of modern science", is regarded as a superseded scientific theory."
Thanks for playing.
Not at all. Einsteins ether has mechanical properties: "To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view."
Your issue is that you are saying Luminiferous aether is what we are talking about. It is not. Even if it was, it was not disproven.
The issue is people don't like the word.
no, the theory of aether is wrong.
aether as the universal inertial reference frame is wrong.
aether as the medium for light is wrong
aether as the fifth element is wrong
"In physics there is no concept considered exactly analogous to the aether"
"The general attitude to this amongst physicists[who?] today is that although it is purely a matter of semantics, Einstein's comments stretch the word "aether" too far: it is argued that an "aether" with no mechanical properties doesn't correspond to the historical idea of aether, and so it is potentially misleading to apply this name to the spacetime field of general relativity"
"Hendrik Lorentz and George Francis FitzGerald offered within the framework of Lorentz ether theory a more elegant solution to how the motion of an absolute aether could be undetectable (length contraction), but if their equations were correct, Albert Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity could generate the same mathematics without referring to an aether at all. This led most physicists to conclude that the classical notion of aether was not a useful concept."
It doesn't take a genius of reading comprehension to figure out the old idea of aether is wrong.
it is current in name only
Obviously the older ideas of ether are incorrect. No one said it wasn't. Einsteins is not.
It doesn't take anyone of any real worth to realize the climate in the scientific community. Personal talks with Dr. Wang of Dispersive Extinction theory clarify his use of the word "space medium" instead of ether - I feel this is relevant:
The "aether" is currently a politically incorrect term, although personaly I am quite open to the concept. Centuries ago, people would laugh at you if you declared that air was a substance. Know[sic] it is a common knowledge. It is naive to believe that the outer space is an absolute void. However, to avoid the argument with the reviewers, i did not use the term "eather"[sic?] in the paper. Instead I used a less offensive term "space medium" which is accepted by the astrophysics community.
Ironically, although the Big Bang theory is built upon the theory of relativity that disproves the concept of eather, the Big Bang theorists are now smuggling in an absolute coordinate system, which they called "preferred system" supposedly at rest with the cosmic background radiation (CBR).
I do believe the CBR is an evidence of the exsistence of eather whose temperature around the solar system is 2.7 K.
5/7/08 as transcribed in Notebook Group 4.
Space medium, or quantum foam, or preferred system, or whatever you want to call it, it exists.
If you wish to have a semantics argument and cry that its called something else, feel free. Just don't expect me to take you seriously.
Now lets examine your uncited quotes:
For all I know some hobo on 4th street told you "In physics there is no concept considered exactly analogous to the aether". However, its obvious you just took that from Wikipedia. It should be noted there are modern versions of aether theory that are reasonably exceptable use the name aether and are simply not within your limited research capabilities (which clearly are, for the majority, are uncited wikipedia articles.)
"This led most physicists to conclude that the classical notion of aether was not a useful concept."
Its not wrong, its just not particularly more useful as a tool. Reading comprehension isn't your strong point is it?
"The general attitude to this amongst physicists[who?] today is that although it is purely a matter of semantics, Einstein's comments stretch the word "aether" too far: it is argued that an "aether" with no mechanical properties doesn't correspond to the historical idea of aether, and so it is potentially misleading to apply this name to the spacetime field of general relativity"
Yes, obviously there is hesitance and prejudice against the word. However, whether they feel Einstein stretches the word too far or not is irrelevant. Being the inventor of the theory he has the right to publish and name it as he wishes and I have the right to reference it as such. Furthermore, as the original article points out, who exactly are these physicists? Why is this statement not even cited? Its bad enough you pull it from wikipedia uncited, but honestly you pull it uncited from an uncited entry on wiki. Fantastic globularist research work.
To think of space to be devoid and barren is sophomoric and silly. To think it has no physical properties is even more ridiculous. If you want to quibble over the name people give these properties, fine. I'll quibble over you not having read any of the work actually concerning ether (under whatever names it has) ever. Good job trolling from your wikipedia armchair.