NONE of these experiments take the observer into account. They are all grit (matterium) based experiments. They DO NOT consider ontology at all. Further, they do not consider the aether at all and by default are inaccurate assumptions. “Up” is relative to the fiduciary observer.
I am a classically trained physicist, btw. My entire education was wasted on this nonsense. I tried to ask the tough questions, but was thwarted every time. I even did experiments challenging the assumption that C was NOT a constant. The data proved it fluctuated, but no one wanted to listen. I tried to publish, but was not given the time of day because I DARED to mention the energy medium in which all of space is wrapped in. So, I went into the Internet business so I could make money rather than being the scholar I was born to be. I wouldn’t have lasted long in Academia at all.
But muh quantum fluid, folks say. How do you say aether without saying aether. The speed of light is merely a rate of induction. Hanging the Newtonian moniker of “speed” on light propagation is insanity. Light is not “emitted”. Light is a field perturbation. Energy is being released which causes manifestation, field perturbation, transverse electrical magnetic and longitudinal z-axis rarefaction compressions at a given power either coherent or incoherent.
The next generation of physicists will recognize ontology and set humankind back on the track it has been denied for the past 100+ years. Energy is free and you can’t meter free energy.
OK, maybe the "speed" moniker being assigned to matter is also misguided ... could "matter" (when set in "motion"?) also be considered a field perturbation?
Energy is being released ...
Is it released or transmitted, or propagated, or something else?
... which causes manifestation, field perturbation, transverse electrical magnetic and longitudinal z-axis rarefaction compressions at a given power either coherent or incoherent.
Fair warning re any response ... this is over my head (Tesla stuff?).