>>11680990>it tells us that IF the ether exists, we (earth) are stationary relative to itNo one at the time of the MM experiment believed that the Earth was stationary. Did any of the physicists involved in the formulation of relativity, like Poincare or Lorentz or Hilbert, ever mention a stationary Earth as a viable alternative? Not to my knowledge, they didn't, because they would have been laughed out of the room.
A stationary Earth would NOT disprove the ether on its own, as you admit. It would need additional invalidation by way of stellar abberation to do so, as you further admit. However, as we see in Airy's Failure, a stationary Earth is also a viable solution to stellar abberation, as is demonstrated in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bynntFteCFsAnd so, both experiments yield a stationary earth and therefore neither disprove the ether theory by way of contradiction, as you would have it.
Suggesting that a stationary Earth was still a viable hypothesis in the early 20th Century and that ether theory requires the Earth to be moving, on one hand, and stationary on the other is a gross misrepresentation of logic, of the facts and of human history, as a whole. Stop it.
