/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15551679
Maxwell equations - self explanatory.
Lorentz transformation - Voigt studying the Doppler effect.
Velocity addition formula - Fizeau's drag formula.
Schroedinger's equation - derived from wave mechanics. Schroedinger uses the word ether multiple times.
De Broglie's relation - started as aether waves produced by moving matter.
Unruh effect - Unruh's "analogue gravity", which is used to study blackholes and Hawking radiation in laboratory with sound waves.

Picrel for gravity and GR.

>>15024228
>Where the similarities (ostensibly) end is in the validity of the imposed condition on transport.
>While we can experimentally demonstrate that the speed of sound is *not* a constant for all inertial reference frames, the same cannot be said for the speed of light.
Because in the Einsteinian-relativistic paradigm, an objective slowing down of the speed of light due to differences in density (= compression of the medium) is translated to a slowing down of time by GR, while a subjective slowing down of the speed of light due to motion of the observer is transformed into a deformation of space (and time).

The objective slowing down of light "due to gravity" was Einstein's original conception of light and gravity, with which he derived that light would bend under the effect of gravity.
This is in agreement with Newton's questions in his Opticks, to which he answered positively. In turn, Newton gave mechanical reason as to why light would slow down and what gravity is, which Einstein simply ignored, not being an a fan of aether.

The subjective slowing down is what is addressed by Ungs's paper.
Lorentz assumed an incompressible aether, whether as a simplifying assumption or because he believed it. Euler, before him, advocated for it to be a compressible medium.
Because of the assumption of incompressibility, it is natural that he would stumble upon the same transformation used by Prandtl-Glauert to transform a compressible flow into an incompressible one: any discrepancy would push him towards it, and did.

>I would submit that the existence of this parallel alone is not a substitute for that experimental evidence.
I agree with you, but as I mentioned before, it is not this parallel *alone* that exists, but a slew of otherwise unexplained parallels all pointing to fluid dynamics, therefore I stand by my opinion.