@metal-brain said
I think he implied Einstein stole the idea from somebody that based his theory on a stationary ether. Rather than admit he stole the idea he claimed the ether didn't exist so people were unlikely to accuse him of stealing another's theory.
If that was what the speaker implied, which I think it probably was what he meant, then that speaker was STILL wrong.
As I said before, Einstein did NOT base is theory of relativity on the concept of ether.
I didn't know he refuted time dilation.
He in effect did by implying all time is absolute and not relative. If time is absolute then logically that means there is no time dilation.
Are atomic clocks sensitive to the temperature changes and pressure?
No.
Since Einstein conceded he was wrong about the ether...
You may have got that a bit back-to-front. He did once believed, like many if not most physicists at that time, there existed an ether that was required to 'vibrate' when a photon wave passed through it and then he deduced relativity which said NO such ether, at least not one that requires to 'vibrate', exists. But after that he didn't ever "conceded he was wrong" about changing his mind about that, because he was NOT wrong about that but rather RIGHT. Thus, and contrary to that speaker's claim, relativity is NOT based on the concept of ether but rather, if anything, iimplicitly assumes that there is NO such 'vibrating'' ether. In fact, if he hadn't thrown away the old shackles of that old ether theory, he may well have had failed to deduced relativity as that old 'vibrating' ether theory implicity assumes and implies there is NO NEED for time dilation or relativity!
To massively complicate the issue; there are SEVERAL major variants on the ether theory, all very different from each other, and not all of them contradict relativity.
But, the fact remains, relativity is NOT BASED on an ether theory and NEVER WAS!