After having read every message in this thread, I must admit, I am disappointed. I don’t see much discussion or sharing of ideas, but I do see a lot of name-calling. An entire body of work is dismissed out-of-hand with the phrases, “quack”, “crackpot”, or “idiot” (whether the village or fucking kind). Opinions are offered, but without any backup or basis of fact. I am glad that all of you are devoting time and brainpower to a worthy endeavor, however, bear in mind that you are discussing theory which cannot be proven or disproven. Regardless of the claims of “billionths” of a degree of accuracy, I encourage you to show me a “photon”, or a vial of aether for that matter. You can’t. It is the duty of people with “scientific minds” to keep an open mind… discounting nothing, and not making conclusions without incontrovertible evidence. I would have you consider this… The “spherical world” theorists were gaining in popularity throughout the 1400s, however, there were a determined bunch of “flat-worlders” still in existence. When Columbus sailed west for “India” on his famous expedition in 1492, and found the Americas instead of India, the “flat-world” theorists had a major revival. The “spherical world” theorists were considered “crackpots”, and “flat-world” theory was once again in the spotlight. It wasn’t until Magellan’s voyage ended in 1522 that the debate once again started up. Once in a while, science is proven to have taken a step in the wrong direction, for perfectly logical reasons. Usually, this happens when something is beyond our measuring capabilities. Mankind once thought itself at the center of the whole universe, but that doesn’t make it so. We would do best to remember our history… As far as aether, and whether science should consider it, it seems to me to be an open door. The idea that light is comprised of “particles” which have momentum, but no mass (I know you’ve heard this, but isn’t the equation for momentum equal to mass times velocity?), and can show doppler-like effects because they can supposedly stretch themselves should open a number of questions. If light looks like a wave, and behaves like a wave, then chances are that it IS a wave, and we have merely failed to detect its modus operandi. It was RIGHT of the scientific community to go down the photonic particle path, to see where it would lead, but it has created new “accepted theory” which makes “Star Trek” look like NASA. One only needs to look at how these theories have to twist our perceived view of the universe to see how suspect they are. When Quantum mechanics and Relativity didn’t fit, they tried still harder to imbue light particles with “wave-like” properties by giving matter the resonance and the expandability of “strings”. All properties that waves have, but particles don’t. All of these odd theories have been created NOT because anyone has ever denied that light was (or at least acted exactly like) a wave, but because humans couldn’t detect it’s medium. Finally, on to my original question… Redbourne (quack or not) declares that Michelson-Morley, and similar experiments since that time could NOT have detected any aether motion, due to the compression and expansion properties of waves, as they flow through a moving medium. The thought is that any difference in wave velocity on a 180 degree folded path, would be compensated for by compression and expansion of the light waves, which would result in a null phase shift at the detector. Bottom line (according to this line of thinking), is that you can’t detect aether motion if your light source and detector are in relative synchronicity. Much like looking through a water filled aquarium. I can point at you, and you can point at me, and we both believe that we are pointing at each other, but if you take away the aquarium, we actually weren’t. (and yes, I know that’s refraction, and not compression…it’s just an analogy). Can anyone point out flaws with the idea that the compression and expansion of light waves in a flowing medium would null the phase shift that M-M hoped to detect?