The quote that stood out for me was the following:
The nineteenth century physicists also believed in the aether, as did Newton. There were many aether theories available, but only one was consistent with observation: H.A. Lorentz's theory, which simply asserted that the Maxwell equations were the equations for the aether. In 1904, Lorentz showed (Einstein et al., 1923) that this theory of the aether - equivalently the Maxwell equations - implied that absolute time could not exist, and he deduced the transformations between space and time that now bear his name. [...] That is, general relativity is already there in 19th century classical mechanics.
Now, all that's well and good, except for one, tiny, teensy little flaw: there is no such thing as aether. Michelson and Morley proved that quite conclusively in 1887. Tipler, in this case, appears to be basing his argument on a theory that was discredited over a century ago. Yes, some of the conclusions of aetheric theory are superficially similar to the conclusions of relativity. That, however, doesn't make the aetheric theory any less wrong.
Hi, Quanticle. You state that "there is no such thing as aether. Michelson and Morley proved that quite conclusively in 1887." For the details on how General Relativity is inherently an æther theory, see physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler and mathematician Maurice J. Dupré's following paper:
...has finally been published.
Contents:
The issue consists of responses to Chalmers (2010). Future volumes will contain additional articles from Shulman & Bostrom, Igor Aleksander, Richard Brown, Ray Kurzweil, Pamela McCorduck, Chris Nunn, Arkady Plotnitsky, Jesse Prinz, Susan Schneider, Murray Shanahan, Burt Voorhees, and a response from Chalmers.
McDermott's chapter should be supplemented with this, which he says he didn't have space for in his JCS article.