> Previous comment about SR, although GR is a natural extension of SR for non-inertial reference frames. Sorry, but SR is a special case of GR now, so not a bi

> Previous comment about SR, although GR is a natural extension of SR for non-inertial reference frames. Sorry, but SR is a special case of GR now, so not a big deal. > The interpretation of it is that it proves the constancy of the speed of light. This is the case whether SR is assumed or Lorentz ether theory. The two theories result in identical predictions, except LET assumes the existence of an ether but without any way of detecting it. Now we have LIGO and Virgo interferometers, which clearly shows that speed of light in pure vacuum is not constant. Now we know that if we will put an interferometer into space, it will detect deviations in speed of light. (We know it as gravitational lensing). Now we know that gravitational waves exist and are conducted by a medium (Higgs field/Higgs boson). Now we know that gravitation is a bit faster than light, so photons are not flying on 100% of C, thus they are not immortal, so they are losing energy with time (Red Shift). If you say that GR/SR is still valid, despite opposing results from experiments, then those experiments are irrelevant for GR/SR at all. Regardless of what experiment will found, scientists will be able to find a way to explain results in terms of GR. With enough number of constants, a formula can make paintings or generate music after all. > Michelson-Morley rules out a stationary ether, at least without length contraction which Lorentz added to attempt to repair the theory. Michelson-Gale-Pearson rules out ether drag. SR and LET are compatible with both experiments. Whether or not the ether is real is philosophical quibbling without a method for separating LET from SR. If we put a sail into a box, to test the existence of a wind, then we may find that there is no wind in the box, if the box is tight enough. It can be interpreted as «there is no wind, so no atmosphere, we are on a Moon», or it can be interpreted as «there is no wind in the box». IMHO, the second variant is valid. For me, Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment doesn't rule out drag. Fizeau shows that drag exists, but it works in heavy mediums. Physical vacuum is too lightweight to change the course of photon just by itself. It will work at the scale of the Solar system. > The Higgs field, just like other fields in quantum field theory, is a relativistic field; its Lagrangian is Lorentz-invariant. Nobody says that Higgs field is stationary. It expected that it will move and behave like any other field, with currents and gradients of stength. However, the average of Higgs field of our visible Universe can be used as a reference frame. I interpret CMB as light of distant galaxies with z=1000, so it can be used as representation of this average. For example, the Sun moves at a cumulative 369 km/s relative to the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) in direction 264°l, 48°b.