You're being downvoted but your right. It's unfortunately hard to not sound like a crackpot on this sort of issue, because there are a lot of relativity-is-wron

You're being downvoted but your right. It's unfortunately hard to not sound like a crackpot on this sort of issue, because there are a lot of relativity-is-wrong crackpots. As far as special relativity goes, the aether ends up being equivalent to a having preferred rest frame. It's not wrong, but it's unnecessary. You still have the light speed limit and length contraction and time dilation and all the same math (which is an unfortunately post-hoc insight), they just take on a different philosophical character. PhysicsForums has a good summary [1]: > Both BU and LET use the Lorentz transform, etc., to make all of their experimental predictions, and therefore they are scientifically indistinguishable, making the same experimental predictions in all cases. Because of this experimental equivalence, there is little if any serious ongoing debate between the two in professional physics circles (although the philosophy literature does have ongoing debate). For me the intuition pump for BU=LET was reading The Strange World of Classical Physics [2]. Notice that, by the end, as more things are considered, it's sounding more and more like relativity... All that being said, I agree with the PhysicsForums policy. It's a pointless debate. Switching between BU and LET might give you some intuitive understanding, but day to day you end up using special relativity because it's a lot more mathematically elegant. Plus I have no idea how you'd make the aether work with general relativity. 1: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-is-the-pfs-policy-on-lorentz-ether-theory-and-block-universe.772224/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-is-the-pfs-policy... 2: http://www.aetherambler.net/strange.htm http://www.aetherambler.net/strange.htm