[mad aetherist (OP)]

JANUS said………………………………………………..
If the light source is stationary to the elevator [& at ht of hole], then the light will hit the opposite side of the wall at the same height as the light [hole] as long as the motion of the elevator is a constant velocity.  Yes i agree.

With such an arrangement, there is no way to tell if the elevator is moving or stationary.
 No -- according to aether theory there are well-known tests that can measure the aetherwind speed & direction & tell u whether the elevator is moving (if the tests are accurate enough). In addition there are other aetheric tests (measurements) of a more difficult kind that could in theory be carried out on the light beam itself that would give sufficient info to tell whether the elevator is moving (if the tests are accurate enough).
In fact it is possible to tell by using Einsteinian SR & GR theory. If the elevator is on Earth then a changing (g) in the elevator will tell u if the elevator is moving, & whether up or down, & how fast – in which case u can also calculate whether the source is moving up or down & how fast (if u know the horiz distance to source).

If the light is emitted by a source with a relative motion [up or down] with respect to the elevator, and the light passes through a hole in the wall, the light will strike the opposite wall at some other height. 
Yes --  except when the light is emitted at the instant that the source is at the same ht as the hole, in which case the light would hit the wall at the same ht as the hole. And that "some other height" of course is not one fixed ht it is a continuously varying ht which will mostly include the ceiling or floor.
This effect is called the aberration of light. OK mightbe.

However, it will not tell you whether it is the elevator or source that is moving, as the result is the same either way.
No --  as i said above,  in theory there are (1) aetheric tests (non-Einsteinian) & (2) Einsteinian tests,  that can tell whether source or whether elevator.

It can only tell you the relative velocity difference between light source and elevator.  No, see above.

If the elevator is accelerating, the path of the light will curve relative to the elevator if the source is stationary relative to the elevator………….
Yes, the beam will have a bend -- Einstein's classic thought experiment.

………….or moving relative to it and shining through the hole.
Yes – the beam will have a bend, a bend that is continuously moving-swinging- changing – partly depending on the nature of the relative movement tween source & elevator (eg velocity constant or not constant)(a constant velocity will give a bent beam)(& a non-constant velocity will give a bent beam)(& these bends might partly negate the classic Einstein bend, or might add).

In the case the light shining through the hole, you can tell if its the source or elevator that is accelerating.
Yes for 2 reasons. Firstly because as i said above u can always tell. Secondly u can tell by comparing the bending to the classic Einsteinian bending (source fixed), the classic bending being non-changing.  Not important, but if the source is a very distant star then the bending will of course be virtually zero.

Like I said above, if the elevator is accelerating the light path will curve, however if it is the source that is accelerating, it will not.
Not exactly – see above.

The best way to envision this is to imagine a short flash of light leaving the source, passing through the hole, passing through a series of glass plates and then hitting the opposite wall.  You can note where the pulse passes through each plate to trace its path from hole to opposite wall.  Accelerating elevator will show the pulse following a curved path relative to the elevator.
Yes – or if u like imagine that the air in the elevator is full of smoke or dust.  Interestingly re that there pulse, i can use a pulse analogy to show that Einstein's elevator (equivalence) thought experiment is complete baloney (i might explain later).

Accelerating source will show the pulse following a straight line relative to the elevator, the angle of this straight line will be determined by the relative velocity between elevator and source at the moment of emission from the source.
No i don’t agree – an accelerating source & a non-accelerating source must both give changing-swinging bent beams of some sort – as already explained above. 

[Janus]

  No i don’t agree – an accelerating source & a non-accelerating source must both give changing-swinging bent beams of some sort – as already explained above. 

The type of "swinging" beam you are talking about here is the equivalent of looking down on a spinning sprinkler head.  A frozen snap shot will give the appearance that the water is following a curve as it travels outward from the sprinkler.  But that is because you are looking at a number of different droplets at once.  If you were to trace the path of any one droplet, you will find that it travels in a straight line.  In the same way, looking at the whole of the light beam at once for the accelerating source gives the impression of a bent path, but it you were to trace the path of each single photon, you would measure them as traveling in a straight line path.   With an accelerating elevator, the individual photons follow curved paths.

[PmbPhy]

No -- according to aether theory there are well-known tests that can measure the aetherwind speed & direction & tell u whether the elevator is moving (if the tests are accurate enough).

There is no experiment that has ever been done which has ever detected an ether. Many were made but not one of them showed any evidence of an ether.

[Bill S]

A, possibly, relevant comment here.

https://skullsinthestars.com/2009/12/29/lord-kelvin-vs-the-aether-1901/

‘Aether did not die out with either Michelson & Morley OR Einstein!’
Yes, these days we refer to it as ‘dark matter’.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

  No i don’t agree – an accelerating source & a non-accelerating source must both give changing-swinging bent beams of some sort – as already explained above. 

The type of "swinging" beam you are talking about here is the equivalent of looking down on a spinning sprinkler head.  A frozen snap shot will give the appearance that the water is following a curve as it travels outward from the sprinkler.  But that is because you are looking at a number of different droplets at once.  If you were to trace the path of any one droplet, you will find that it travels in a straight line.  In the same way, looking at the whole of the light beam at once for the accelerating source gives the impression of a bent path, but it you were to trace the path of each single photon, you would measure them as traveling in a straight line path.   With an accelerating elevator, the individual photons follow curved paths.

Yes i agree 100% with all of this. Re that there single photon, i think i will start a new thread where i show that Einstein's elevator equivalence thoughtX is baloney, leading to an ugly bending of light passing the Sun.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

No -- according to aether theory there are well-known tests that can measure the aetherwind speed & direction & tell u whether the elevator is moving (if the tests are accurate enough).

There is no experiment that has ever been done which has ever detected an ether. Many were made but not one of them showed any evidence of an ether.

Every MMX has detected the aether (aetherwind). No MMX has been null. U can google all of that stuff. I recommend Reg Cahill's articles -- & Conrad Ranzan's DSSU stuff. Nearly forgot -- Demjanonv's twin media MMX done at Obninsk  on 22 June 1970 is the best -- it showed that the horizontal projection of the aetherwind varied tween 140 kmps & 480 kmps during a day. The background aetherwind blowing throo our solar system blows at say 500 kmps at say 20 deg off Earth's spin-axis.

Cahill 2002 & Demjanov 1968 showed that an MMX in vacuum (every modern Einsteinian MMX has been in vacuum) must give a null result (ie they are not MMX's). The good side of that is that these null results are all evidence that supports Lorentzian length contraction (or FitzGerald-Voigt-Lorentz-Larmor-Poincare length contraction if u like)(but cannot support Einsteinian length contraction because this is not a real effect).

[David Cooper]

If an MMX with air in it can detect the aether, why has no one won the Nobel Prize with one? There must be plenty of people who've had a go, and if all their results agreed, the issue would be resolved - surely anyone who builds an MMX with a vacuum in the arms would also test it without the vacuum. Lorentz Ether Theory also provides no mechanism for an MMX with the beams moving through air to provide anything other than a null result unless you're doing such things as introducing heat differences and air currents to produce errors.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

If an MMX with air in it can detect the aether, why has no one won the Nobel Prize with one? There must be plenty of people who've had a go, and if all their results agreed, the issue would be resolved - surely anyone who builds an MMX with a vacuum in the arms would also test it without the vacuum. Lorentz Ether Theory also provides no mechanism for an MMX with the beams moving through air to provide anything other than a null result unless you're doing such things as introducing heat differences and air currents to produce errors.

Michelson won a Nobel (albeit not for MMX). If Einstein's SR & GR thought experiments showed that aether was superfluous, why didnt he win the Nobel Prize for it?

The aether issue is resolved, however the science-mafia (Einsteinians) have control & exert strict censorship.
No gas-mode MMX ever had a null result.
Lorentz length contraction limits the observed MMX fringeshifts to small 2nd order results. However Demjanov's twin media MMX gave 1st order fringeshifts, 1000 times as sensitive as the 2nd order MMX's.

Shankland's hit-job (1955) where he said that Miller's non-null MMX results were due to temp is a lie.
Roberts hit-job (2006) where he said that Miller's non-null MMX results had a giant error bar is a lie.

[yor_on]

Let's see :)

All MMX experiments?
There is one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
that one was specifically created to find this aether wind

But, it didn't.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
=

Btw, you should find your sources in the last link.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

Let's see All MMX experiments? There is one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
that one was specifically created to find this aether wind But, it didn't.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
=Btw, you should find your sources in the last link.

All gas mode MMXs have measured a fringeshift. Vacuum gives zero. Helium gives i think less than 1/10th of air. Michelson's 1887 MMX showed 1/6th of the expected 30 kmps aetherwind. Munera showed that Michelson's averaging method partly negated his numbers. Cahill showed that Michelson's calibration was too low by a factor of about 40. That wiki for MMXs in your link has lots of good stuff but also many lies & omissions (i could list them). Roberts' hitjob is rubbish, i read it a long time ago, the errors in Miller's MMX were not as hi as Roberts said.

All u need to do is to google Demjanov's twin media (air & carbondisulphide) MMX done in Obninsk on 22 June 1970 which showed an aetherwind of 140 kmps min & 480 kmps max (horizontal projection of the background aetherwind which is 500 kmps south  to north blowing 20 deg off Earth's spin-axis). This genius 1st order MMX is 1000 times as sensitive & accurate as the oldendays 2nd order MMXs.

[David Cooper]

All u need to do is to google Demjanov's twin media (air & carbondisulphide) MMX done in Obninsk on 22 June 1970 which showed an aetherwind of 140 kmps min & 480 kmps max (horizontal projection of the background aetherwind which is 500 kmps south  to north blowing 20 deg off Earth's spin-axis). This genius 1st order MMX is 1000 times as sensitive & accurate as the oldendays 2nd order MMXs.

Do you actually have two different MMX experiments providing the same aetherwind numbers to show that it is a real finding? (I don't trust numbers that have been massaged in any way by Cahill.)

[mad aetherist (OP)]

All u need to do is to google Demjanov's twin media (air & carbondisulphide) MMX done in Obninsk on 22 June 1970 which showed an aetherwind of 140 kmps min & 480 kmps max (horizontal projection of the background aetherwind which is 500 kmps south  to north blowing 20 deg off Earth's spin-axis). This genius 1st order MMX is 1000 times as sensitive & accurate as the oldendays 2nd order MMXs.

Do you actually have two different MMX experiments providing the same aetherwind numbers to show that it is a real finding? (I don't trust numbers that have been massaged in any way by Cahill.)

I think they all show approx the same numbers consistent with a south to north wind of 300 kmps or up to 500 kmps 15 deg to 23 deg off Earth's axis (re Michelson & re Miller they needed proper calibration). Re different MMXs, Cahill used an optical fibre MMX which gives the same sort of kmps & deg. He also used a coaxial cable MMX.  And a zener diode, but this wasnt an MMX.  See.....

Correlated Detection of sub-mHz Gravitational Waves by Two Optical Fibre Interferometers -- Reginald T Cahill & Finn Stokes -- 2008.

New Light Speed Anisotropy Experiment: Absolute Motion and Gravitational Waves Detected -- Reginald T Cahill -- 2006.

Gravitational Wave Experiments With Zener Diode Quantum Detectors: Fractal Dynamical Space and Universe Expansion With Inflation Epoch -- Reginald T Cahill -- 2014.

Characterisation of Low Frequency Gravitational Waves from Dual RF CoAxial Cable Detector: Fractal Textured Dynamical 3-Space -- Reginald T Cahill -- 2012.

Why dont u trust Cahill's numbers?

[David Cooper]

Why dont u trust Cahill's numbers?

I looked at his work long ago and found something that led to me rejecting him as a serious source of information. Unfortunately, I can't now remember the details, so I'll have to take another look when I have more time.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

Why dont u trust Cahill's numbers?

I looked at his work long ago and found something that led to me rejecting him as a serious source of information. Unfortunately, I can't now remember the details, so I'll have to take another look when I have more time.

I seem to remember seeing something he wrote that i didnt agree with, & likewise i cannot remember what it was. But that doesnt mean that one can somehow reject him as a serious source of info. After all 9 out of 10 aetherists that write a lot on the subject havnt actually done any tests of any sort themselves (talking about proper scientists here)(not just riff raff like me).
But for sure if u ever remember then i would like to know.
For one thing Cahill talks of a quantum dynamic space (aether), whilst Ranzan points out that aether is sub-quantum.

Cahill was the first to explain the need for gas in an MMX -- MMXs in vacuum are null first time & every time. Alltho Demjanov was actually the first in 1970, alltho he didnt write an English version untill say 2010. Cahill was the first to derive the correct calibrations for Michelson & for Miller. He (& Demjanov) deserve Nobels.

[yor_on]

This was a clear thread from 2011.
Now it's not so clear with a lot of propositions better fitting 'New Theories', even though the aether theory is old.
I would be pleased to see a moderator lifting out the new material to then create a appropriate new thread  in 'New theories'

[mad aetherist (OP)]

This was a clear thread from 2011.
Now it's not so clear with a lot of propositions better fitting 'New Theories', even though the aether theory is old.
I would be pleased to see a moderator lifting out the new material to then create a appropriate new thread  in 'New theories'

I dont see the need. There was only one response before i weighed in, now we are up to #20. Alltho some of them are off topic.

[Colin2B]

I don't trust numbers that have been massaged in any way by Cahill.

Why dont u trust Cahill's numbers?

Despite what you might think, physicists are a sceptical bunch and when someone makes a new claim they try to replicate the results. If the lab is a good one they will also check assumptions around the experiment eg sensitivity to variables, possible error sources.
Cahill’s experiments don’t have repeatability when subject to scrutiny eg http://www.ptep-online.com/2017/PP-49-10.PDF

On a more general note: the main aim of this site is educational, hence we reserve the main sections of this forum to currently accepted theories. Unlike some fora (including many non-science sites) we do have a section for alternative views and we ask all members to respect this and post in the appropriate areas. See https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66954.0

[opportunity]

I agree with the need for repeatability of experiments.

In this day of "computer animation" my worry is that much of what is explained re. stellar phenomena is done by Disney. I'm "not" sure if that's the right education. I've seen animation that suggests white-dwarfs, pulsars, to blackholes releasing jet-streams of matter and gas and light beyond light speed, given the size of these astrophysical constructs, and yet its animated real-time with results in astrophysics according to those results. Has anyone else noticed that?

For a big star, much larger apparently than our own sun, to just shut down, go out, thats odd. I'd think maybe it wasn't that big to start with. So imagine we are able to hypothetically see such a great mass by hypothetically being close to that event, for that sun to just completely turn off....the question is, "would we be witnessing the physics we talk about in this solar system"?

[mad aetherist (OP)]

I don't trust numbers that have been massaged in any way by Cahill.

Why dont u trust Cahill's numbers?

Despite what you might think, physicists are a sceptical bunch and when someone makes a new claim they try to replicate the results. If the lab is a good one they will also check assumptions around the experiment eg sensitivity to variables, possible error sources.
Cahill’s experiments don’t have repeatability when subject to scrutiny eg http://www.ptep-online.com/2017/PP-49-10.PDF

On a more general note: the main aim of this site is educational, hence we reserve the main sections of this forum to currently accepted theories. Unlike some fora (including many non-science sites) we do have a section for alternative views and we ask all members to respect this and post in the appropriate areas. See https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66954.0

Yes i am familiar with that paper where they couldnt duplicate Cahill's zener diode tests showing a south to north turbulence in the background  aetherwind. I am not able to comment on the technicalities mentioned. But in one series of tests Cahill had no trouble comparing outputs measured by a second team in London. And Cahill had no trouble comparing the outputs of lots of detectors at many Earthly locations showing such turbulence. As Bauer et al say, more work needed.