The Michelson-Morley experiment was only done on earth.
IF the matter forming the planets was swept together by vortexes of aether, one could reasonably expect that over a billion years or so the rotating mass and the swirling aether would drag each other to the same velocity.
Any attempt to measure the speed of light relative to that differential velocity (between the moving surface of the earth and the static frame of an immovable aether) would fail as the moving mass and the aether would have long since equilibrated to the same velocity.
Same argument for the earth’s motion about the sun, and the sun’s motion relative to the center of the galaxy. We’re all being swept along with the flow of the aether.
Einstein envisioned space as being warped into gravitational wells. These are always drawn as if they are simple depressions in a perfect grid of graph paper.
Suppose those wells are not simple dimples, but are swirling vortexes of aether. Like a whirlpool on the surface of water, they’d tend to accumulate any matter floating on the surface, and that matter would tend to acquire the same spin as the surface of the whirlpool.
Easy enough to test. Do the the Michelson-Morley experiment on a cubesat or deep space probe cutting across the flow of the aether...
I would be honored if both of you would comment on my post #54.
One of the serious problems with measuring the speed of light is that it really isn’t the constant we all claim it to be as we know that light is altered by the medium through which it travels, otherwise lenses wouldn’t work, light would bend on entering water, red shift shouldn’t occur, etc. We think that the speed of light is ~186,282.25 miles per sec in a vacuum everywhere but we really have only tested here in our backwater province which, for all we may know is a school zone with a speed limit sign. In other words, we are making unwarranted assumptions that local conditions are universal. There is no legitimate reason to accept those assumptions.
One of the biggest ones is the use of G as a constant in many universal equations. That’s "Big G" as in the force of Gravity, which assumes G is a constant. In general, for most things, it works fine. Many people even here on earth use G as 1G, but G measures slightly differently everywhere it’s measured accurately on earth. It also varies with time. It certainly is not the same big G everywhere in the solar system. . . and one of the shocking things predicted by the EU, which is being found to be true in visits to comets, G may not be related to mass, and mass may ultimately be related to charge differential.
Incidentally, no model of the accretion disk star and planet formation has ever been shown to actually come to cause the creation of a star or planet. Instead, they tend to fall apart, not coalesce. The tendency to all orbiting gases and solid particles to orbit at the same velocity and orbits is part of the problem. The lack of high enough differential velocities at micro-gravities show that collisions tend to just bounce apart at such low velocity and not adhere. The bounce may result in a mutual orbit around a shared center of gravity, but only rarely would two masses join. Some force stronger than gravity is required to form planets and stars.
Swordy... Interesting article for people at my level (and it sounds like you're waay past that) is here => https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/are-the-laws-of-physics-really-universal/. Though I've heard some of it before, it's an interesting recap about how physical law and physical constants might or might not be changing over time and distance.
One point about G and g... The latter is an acceleration and obviously changes from place to place, while the former has units meters cubed per kilogram per second squared, or the equivalents, and is not an acceleration that changes from place to place, but is believed to be one of those "universal constants."
As to accretion disk models... I believe computer simulations work pretty well modeling them, but formal mathematical models are going to run into difficulty, in part because the three-body problem is still unsolved, never mind the n-body problem, though I thought electrostatic forces have been shown to be sufficient to bring particles the size of smoke (which almost all particles in a nascent disk are - supernovae are a b***h!). After that, electrostatic forces rule until gravity can take over. Well... That's just my understanding. Could be wrong. As always.