Marek,
Introducing the concept of a "Primary Structure" is difficult to do in nine pages. I will limit my comments to the Michelson-Morley (MM) experiment. This experiment was conducted in 1887, just after Heinrich Hertz demonstrated that electromagnetic (EM) waves propagated through the air, 1886. The "ancient scientists" of that era were unaware that we are constantly bathed in EM fields from planetary, solar system and cosmic sources; cosmic sources were not identified until the 1930s. The Sun was still considered a hot ball of gas in the late 1800s. Georgina Parry, essay 1316, used the term "incomplete information" to describe how many of the contemporary assumptions were created, many being carried forward for multiple centuries, some still establishing the basis of what is taught in universities.
We now know our small planet is carried along with the sun, with its complex plasma-geomagnetic environment, all of this unknown to the "ancient scientists." Contemporary scientists are trying to understand why radio-active decay rates are varying with earth-sun distance, amongst other Sun issues.
Contemporary scientists don't even know why a vacuum has permittivity and permeability, and seem to conveniently avoid this issue.
The gross error of the MM experiment is the assumption that the aether, a medium needed for the propagation of light, was absolutely fixed in relationship to everything in the universe. How contemporary scientist can justify the MM experiment as validating the non-existence of this medium seems to be a type of "Stockholm Syndrome," where scientists follow an established "authority structure" (Prof. Kuhn term). It is well known if you do not follow what is considered "generally accepted, there will be consequences, and there are prominent examples of this retribution being practiced currently.
The MM experiment, as structured, cannot invalidate the false assumption that aether is fixed in the universe, thus contemporary experiments will produce the same results. It is not known why any current "prominent" scientists will not challenge the "false assumption." It is difficult to find any papers that mention the basic assumption that was the reason for the MM experiment.
(Note: G. Parry was being polite when she used the term "incomplete information", it really means "ignorance." It is considered heretical to state that any of the icons of "ancient science" were ignorant.)
