Talk:Timeline of luminiferous aether

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Physics: Relativity Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the relativity task force.

When should timeline begin?[edit]

"the Timeline of Luminiferous Aether begins in the late 19th century with the concept of the aether ("light-bearing aether"), or ether, as a medium for electromagnetic propagation."

I tbink it begins rather earlier than this. See Einstein's "Aether and relativity" lecture for an overview, or Newton's "Optiks". ErkDemon 02:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big part missing before Newton. I mean the contribution of René Descartes in XVII century. Агафонов Л. Ю. (talk) 10:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kuhnianism?[edit]

I think it is important to note that this article is written in a very Kuhnian way. Thomas Kuhn's philosophy of science propounds an idea of 'crisis' and 'revolution'. A more neutral approach to the history of the luminiferous aether may be required, or at least a contrasting historiography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.197.90 (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good article, lousy name[edit]

I propose that this timeline be renamed, and a little bit adjusted, so that it describes the timeline of light, rather than of some substance that was realized not to be necessary. The article is full of great information, and the timeline method is wonderful for context. I just almost passed over it because I didn't want to know about the aether theory, I wanted to know about all of the theories and current understanding of light. --Qrystal (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References and Citations?[edit]

Why are there no inline citations given? Particularly in the "Early Experiments" section. In the later sections, the links provided eventually lead to sources, but these events/claims still need substantiation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJKessler (talk • contribs) 13:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation[edit]

Many readers will be unsure of the pronunciation, since to North Americans, "aether" looks like it should begin with a long "a" sound rather than the likely long "e" sound. Edison (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why "Aether" instead of "ether?"[edit]

It does not appear to have a clearer relation to the UK than to the US. I checked Google Books (excluding results from Wikipedia) and found 57,200 results for "luminiferous ether" compared to only 8,020 for "luminiferous aether," a ratio of over 7 to one. At Google Scholar, with Wikipedia excluded, I found 3,050 results for "luminiferous ether" compared to only 767 for "luminiferous aether," a ratio of almost 4 to one. Aren't articles in general supposed to use the most commonly used terms and spellings in their titles? I suppose that since a UK speller tagged the article first, WP:ENGVAR would suggest leaving it at the minority spelling. Edison (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Fudge factor"[edit]

While I had a chuckle at the expression and its meaning is clear, there's a little problem with using inverted commas for "fudge factor" and a quote of Newton - "Aethereal Medium" in the same sentence.Accidentprone104 (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]