That Einstein was wrong about the "luminiferous
ether" being non-existent (and even by 1933, the "ether" was considered a quaint, 19th-century idea by the vast majority of physicists.)
So Einstein was wrong then, and 19th-century "ether" physics is correct..? If so, why have we faced the daily threat of nuclear annihilation for the last 50 years???
Taking on Einstein (and cfpf.org seems to think it should be supplanted with an "update"(?) of NEWTONIAN theory, thus accomodating the "ether") is dangerous business... general relativity has stood tall against all comers for nearly the last 90 years. (My money is on it CONTINUING to do so...)

B-man

The problem is, Mattb - it is true that Einstein didn't believe he had the whole picture. BUT -
His theories (which exclude the existence of a pervasive "ether" as the medium in which light is propagated) are sort of like a Timex watch - "they take a licking and keep on ticking." For 90 years now (since 1919 when general relativity was vindicated for the first time) Einstein's theories have stood up MAGNIFICENTLY against every test physicists have thrown at it. The sole remaining problem in the theory, is how to mate it with quantum physics.
The ideas of Crookes, Lodge, ect. are however dependent on the existence of the above-mentioned "ether". To take up their cause is a bit like trying to defend the flat-earth theory in that case.
The best support that modern physics can give to the idea of Crookes and Lodge is (perhaps) the "Higgs boson" which some physicists think may form a sort of soupy "ether." (However, it is NOT the "source of all matter" that the 19th-century ether was imagined to be. The "Higgs field" is instead proposed as the source of gravitational effects, another function entirely.)
So, while it is true that Einstein didn't believe he had the whole truth, that's just more testimony to his humility (which set off his genius in such a winning way and is probably why he is not only considered the greatest, but possibly the most-loved scientist of all time.) I rather suspect that Einstein likely DID come as close to "absolute Truth" as any man has. The way I see it, this poses grave problems with the "secular case for survival" set out by the likes of William Crookes (who MAY have been lying, WAS he having an affair with that medium, or did he suffer from thallium poisoning as his detractors say? It IS a possibility) and Oliver Lodge...
And I'm not big on conspiracy theories either - and cfpf.org, Michael Roll, ect. seem to think there is a vast Catholic-materialist conspiracy to misinform the public as to the "scientific case for survival." This seems a bit far-fetched, Mattb. (WERE I to accept that, what next? - Should I start believing that the government is looking the other way while aliens are busily abducting rednecks from trailer parks and sticking probes up their heineys???)
See where I'm coming from?

B-man