madmac

zztop. Re those thousands of confirmations re isotropy of c. U should cross off any of the M&M ones that are done in vacuum. Vacuum gives a null result according to Prof Reg Cahill (because the refractive index is 1.0000) who gives the correct calibration for gas mode M&M experiments in -- The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the discovery of absolute motion -- 2005, Progress In Physics. This must i think also apply to some experiments using vacuum lasers & vacuum etalons. Helium-Neon has a very low refractive index & hencely must be little better than vacuum i think. Air is ok.

DanMP. Thanks for the 2 links. I have heard of vertical M&M. Non vertical tests are dangerous, u will always get periodic flexing at 2 orientations 180 dg apart. The video shows the fringes reversing direction, i am not sure if this is a signature of flexing, i will have to think about it. Horizontal tests are unlikely to suffer from flexing, the flexing will be constant. But now i put on my aetherist hat, what would an aetherist say re a null fringe drift for a horizontal test, but showing lots of drift when carried out vertically. Aetherists say that the background aether-wind (say 430 km/sec) passes south-to-north at between 10 dg & 30 dg off Earth's spin axis (depending on season of year), Right Ascension 5.5 hrs. If the experiment were carried out at latitude 60 dg then perhaps the plane of the experiment contained the velocity of the aether-wind exactly (unlikely i know). Berlin is at 52.5 dg. If so then any horizontal test would be null (or nearly), whilst a vertical test would give maximum possible fringe drift (for all compass orientations of that-there vertical). I am not sure if in this case the fringes reverse (as in the video), or not, i will have to think about it. Earth's orbital velocity (30 km/sec) would help or hurt my above angles (=30/430) by +4 dg or -4 dg. Hencely u might get a vertical aether-wind at latitude 56 dg for one day a year (Berlin is at 52.5 dg), & of course at latitude 84 dg. But my astronomy is almost non-existent. Earth's spin velocity is negligible (0.4 km/sec)(less at Berlin). Cahill reports a turbulence (in his Dynamic Space) of up to plus or minus 30 km/s, what he calls Gravitational Waves. I don't know what these are, but i guess that they might add or subtract another +4 dg or -4 dg, taking the above angles to 52 dg& 88 dg. However, he said that these manifest at i think a micro-second frequency (on average), hencely they would be unlikely to show up in these sorts of visual fringe-drifts (too fast for our eyes)(& camera). Getting maximum readings when the arms are at 45 dg (& 225 dg) is a mystery. Flexing should be at a max at say 90dg (& 270) dg, & M&M should be at a max at say 00dg & 180 dg (not sure), in which case if both occur then u might get that-there 45 dg (& 225 dg). Perhaps one more idea. I know little about lasers, but i have a suspicion that the frequency of a laser is affected by its orientation with respect to the aether-wind, going from max to min each 90 dg of turn (or is it each 180 dg). Not only that, i have a suspicion that there is Doppler happening in an M&M, ie re the reflected photons, going from max to min each 90 dg (or 180 dg). Doppler would give its own fringe-drift, which would add or subtract from the common time delay fringe-drift. If the aether-wind is vertical, then the horizontal M&M wont be affected by the above frequency & Doppler affects, but the vertical M&M might (i need to think all of this through).

swansont re your post#22. In which u ask me to explain the physics behind my statement that if a pendulum cannot be trusted to measure time, ie g, then it cannot be trusted to measure the stability of G. It is well known that a pendulum might change its beat if moved, ie due to a change in g due to position or altitude. But, if not moved, the beat might also change due to temperature or air pressure or vibration. Bearing in mind that we are talking mainly about a Grandfather clock here. Which reminds me that when John Cuthber made his statement that "we have Grandfather clocks that are good enough to disprove that idea" (regarding my statement that Russians found a curious change in G of 0.7% over time), no-one asked him to explain the physics. That doesn't bother me much, what bothers me more is that no-one pointed out the lack of logic that any fresh measurements anywhere with any sort of apparatus could possibly disprove that the Russians did actually measure a 0.7% change at a particular place at a particular time. Nextly, there doesn't appear to be any reference on Google that a pendulum has ever been used to measure G. Cavendish used a torsion apparatus in say 1790, & he was the first, despite good pendulums being around since say 1690. Perhaps a pendulum can be used to measure G, armed with a good equation for that pendulum, & using Newton's inverse square equation for gravity, so why hasn't it ever been done (or has it?). It seems to me that a pendulum can be used to measure a change in g at any one location, & hencely a change in G, in which case a Grandfather clock could be used, but u would need a balance-clock (or a non-pendulum clock of some other sort) to measure true period (time). Strange. If u are correct that Einstein had no doubts about a pendulum's suitability for measuring time, then it must have been the Editor who authored Note 7 in Einstein's book (see earlier postings). Possibly the Editor of the English version (1920 here). One little problem, Einstein said (somewhere??) that a clock at a low altitude was slower than a clock at a higher altitude. But, i reckon that a pendulum clock beats faster at a lower altitude.

Strange. No, when i wrote that i hadn't given any thought to whether a pendulum is ok for demonstrating the stability of G. I suspected that Note#7 possibly had to do with Einstein's (or the Editor's) misgivings re whether a pendulum is ok for measuring time. But, if u think about it, if a pendulum cannot be trusted to measure time, ie g, then it cannot be trusted to measure the stability of G. But, having said that, any drift in the pendulum's beat could be either due to drift in G (a real effect), or it could be due to some non-related effect (bad timing) feared by Einstein (or Editor). No, i hadn't grabbed a random statement (by a Nobel Prize recipient)(do Nobel Laureates make random statements?) & i didn't drop it later. I stand by every word i have written on this forum, here & elsewhere. However, if anyone here should happen to show my errors, or give me some new information (which they have), then i will be happy. I have seen some new info & some new links here that i appreciate & were interesting, but none have in any way made me change one iota of my beliefs in aether theory. And it appears vice versa, unfortunately. If someone has a false idea, then that is one thing (no big deal), but if that someone has had the truth explained but yet adheres to falsehood then that is less forgivable. Yes, it works both ways, but the truth might surface sooner than u think.

pzkpfw. Strange. I did say -- or at least Einstein's extension of it. In the sister-thread -- Einstein's train & me -- i mention 18 train experiments (in his 1920 book), & the famous twin lightning experiment is No12 -- & Einstein does his rod & clock routine in No 9 & 10 & 11 & 13. zztop. Lemmeseenow -- my advice that the speed of light is anisotropic is rubbish because the speed of light is isotropic. Ok, i get it.

Strange. I googled censorship in science & indeed it is difficult to find anything. Pages of stuff about politics & global warming & Trump etc. I cant paste links, but if u google -- "the corruption of science in America" -- (by J Marvin Herndon)(2011), the article (link) will come up ok. But this-here thread is about SR & the train experiment, so let me think of something smelly somewhere on the platform. Yes, i have an example pointing at something that stinks. The train experiment, or at least Einstein's extension of it, relies on being able to synchronise clocks. Einstein's method is to time a beam of light that goes from A to B, & reflected back B to A. The clock at B is then re-set & synchronised based on a half of that time. If the speed of light A-B is not identical to B-A then this synchronisation method is kaput. There is a better method of synchronising clocks A & B, which as we all know involves moving a clock C very slowly from A to B. But, this doesn't save the day for Einstein. If speed A-B is different to B-A then the whole of SR is kaput, dead, finished. "Light Transmission and the Sagnac Effect on the Rotating Earth" -- by Stephan J G Gift (Sept 3 2013). Mentions that GPS shows that signals on Earth going west-to-east are slower than signals going east-to-west. Einsteinians accept this anomaly, but instead of admitting that SR & GR are wrong, they apply what they call the Sagnac correction, and continue on their merry way as if that answers that. No, it don't. "The GPS and the Constant Velocity of Light" -- by Paul Marmet. This mentions same, & has some interesting wordage re west-to-east & east-to-west stuff.

Strange. studio. I see no need to change even one word of my earlier jottings. Almost all of what i say is based on stuff that i have read. In many instances i don't fully understand it, so i need to be careful, & use appropriate wording. Certainly i am not an expert of any sort, & my wording should reflect that. But i think that nonetheless i know enough to see through bad science (ie some of the mainstream stuff). But i would be happy to know what John Cuthber thought of my comments (re his Grandfather clocks, & re pendulums etc). And i would be happy to know whether Astro experts agree with what i said re G*m being crucial (ie moreso than G & m individually).

Strange. Too simplistic for two reasons. The law should acknowledge that it doesn't apply if observers are moving in the plane of symmetry splitting the events. And anyhow it should be worded in some other way -- i suggest that it should say that the clock in an observer's frame will not give the same time (for the event) compared to another observer's clock (this observer moving relative to the first). Re SR being correct some of the time, here i am referring to the difference tween aether theory & SR. Both give identical answers some of the time. Both use Lorentz transformations, length dilation, & time dilation. Both use Pythagorus, with sides c & v. Therefore it should be no surprise that both give the same answer in some specific cases. Re censorship, i have 20 articles or links under this heading in my computer, & many more under different headings but could be under this heading. I am not talking about dissident scientists or sceptical papers etc (of which there must be 1000,s), i am talking about articles re censorship itself. Googling will find plenty of stuff in all categories. Of course there are cranks, some so bad that i suspect that they are planted by sniggering Einsteinians (who are paid for their work). I steer clear if any mention of multiverses, parallel universes, hologram universes, multi-dimensions, string theory, electric universe, expanding earth, etc etc.

Strange. My reference to Einstein's concerns re pendulum clocks was as i said related to SR & GR & my meaning there was primarily re reliability re measurement of time (but in my own mind i also realised that there might be other gravitational implications), which i suspected might not be known to all around this forum which is why i pointed it out, all of which could only be generalisations because i didn't know & indeed still don't know what John Cuthber's statement re Grandfather clocks meant. In my googling i didn't see any mention of pendulum clocks ever being used to find G. They were used to find g. And there was mention of them being used to find changes in g, which could be related to possible changes in G, which is not the same thing as putting a number to G. Einstein's writing (not clear if him or Editor) that one needs to use a balance-clock is understandable because these use pure inertia rather than a gravity-inertia effect. Anyhow in future i had better quote someone who has won 2 or preferably 3 Nobels else i will be savagely attacked. studio. Re accuracy for astro purposes, big G is almost irrelevant, what is relevant for trajectories & orbits is the product(s) G*m, which is known to umpteen digits. Which brings me back again to statements re G being measured to almost 8 digits, i don't understand how this can be reconciled with other articles pointing out discrepancies, which range from plus 0.7% to minus 0.2%, & in particular a ref to Russians finding a drift of 0.7% (i must find details). None of this makes sense. Students should also google borehole anomaly, & the Allais Effect (not the economics one). I had a lot of fun years ago googling the Tamarack Mine mystery. Its a sort of gravitational who-done-it.

Strange. When John Cuthber made some claims in post#5 u didn't ask for citations & equations etc, especially re the claim re how a Grandfather clock could disprove the idea that G can vary by 0.7% over time. And u didn't point out to John Cuthber that it wasn't what he called an idea (by the Russians), it was the result of an experiment. But when i mentioned some doubts about using pendulums, in particular Einstein's concerns re using a pendulum clock re SR & GR, & that Allais had some concerns re pendulums re gravity, & then i in post#9 provided details, u now demand that i supply equations identifying the physics behind my doubts & how they impinge on John Cuthber's claims. It appears that i am not entitled to raise such matters unless i provide some sort of proof of the underlying physics. Whereas Einstein apparently didn't have to bother when he raised it first (in his 1905 paper). And Allais spent much of his life looking for the cause of the Allais Effect (& got a Nobel), but now it falls on me to find it & define it with equations (even though i suspect that he didn't provide the equations before he got his Nobel). And whereas John Cuthber didn't explain his claim, i nonetheless have to read his mind, & then i have to provide the physics & equations behind my doubts. Well, i am glad that u did, because it lead me to read a few more articles (that i wouldn't have), which i enjoyed, & after all that is the reason i am here on this forum.

Sensei. I am not sure if i can actually quote some sort of measurement that is very very accurate but rubbish. I might think of one while i am watching the Falcons beat the Patriots. I of course mean that the number might be good, but the explanation rubbish. I will have a think. Yes, of course, LIGO. A very accurate clever apparatus, but found something that doesn't exist. COBE & PLANCK. Likewise. How about the standard metre. Supposedly very very accurate, but, in fact the length varies depending on time of day & day of year.

pzkpfw. Thanks for the reply, However i dont see any need to change any word of what i wrote. Re the lady in the train, i didn't reverse my opinion. When the observers in the ferris wheel are getting their moneys worth she is in the train going perpendicularly to the wheel, & hencely the strikes are not simultaneous for her (in the context of the experiment). Re my posting#17, there i am referring to the mirror-image experiment, with train at rest & earth moving. If one (or more than one) case contradicts a law then that law is wrong. Einstein's wording of his law is wrong, its too simplistic. If i had to reword Einstein's law then i would make sure that it said that, when an observer sees an event, other observers moving relative to that observer will deduce a different time for the event compared to the time deduced by that observer. Finding a good wording for this will be very difficult. And if necessary i should include some extra wordage to describe any exceptions, eg if the relative motion is along some plane of symmetry of some sort. And no, it isn't clear what is going on. I had trouble trying to understand what in hell Einstein was trying to say. The experiment is confusing enough as it is. Einstein's wording is not just sloppy, it is wrong. Einstein should never confuse the lightning strike (the time of the event) with the lightning flash (the time the event is observed). And, Einstein should make a distinction between what an observer sees (ie when he/she sees it)(ie the flash) & what an observer deduces (ie the time of the strike). So here we have another layer of confusion. And re science, u are wrong. Einsteinism is wrong 99% of the time. It is a religion, kept alive by censorship, bullying, misinformation & propaganda. Name any instance of Einstein being correct & i will refer u the real facts. Obviously not on this thread, unless it refers to simultaneity (or trains). VandD. Do u agree with my ferris-wheel thought experiment????

Ok i found it. In Chapter 5 of On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies by A. Einstein (June 30, 1905)(English version), Alby says that a moving clock will be slower than a clock at rest, & Alby says..... "Thence we conclude that a balance-clock (7) at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions". The note (not sure if this is Alby's or the Editor's) at the bottom of the page says..... "(7) Not a pendulum-clock, which is physically a system to which the Earth belongs. This case had to be excluded". Hencely i couldn't resist the urge to point this out to John Cuthber who had said that Grandfather clocks could be used to find G to better than 2 places (digits). However it isn't clear just how a Grandfather clock could be so used. Re my mention of Allais having some concerns re using pendulums (for timing, or for finding G), i would be surprised if everyone here hadn't heard of the Allais Effect, ie the anomalous behaviour of pendulums related to gravity during eclipses. Strange. I don't see how i am cherry picking when i point out something that Einstein wrote or said. And anyhow it was only in relation to an assertion peripheral to finding G (ie re Grandfather clocks). Unless u mean my reference to 0.7% & 0.2% & 1.0% & 0.7% & 20% & 40 & 40.

pskpfw. Yes events simultaneous for one cant be simultaneous for the other, no matter how u work it out. The train experiment (video) simply analyses what the platform-observer reckons that the train-observer sees. I said that Tir21 asked what does the train-observer see & reckon based on her assuming that the train was stationary & the earth moving. Are u suggesting that what Tir21 asked is what does she reckon that he sees & reckons?? If so then that question adds another layer of imagining that i think would send Einstein to a funny-farm. But in any case that video proves that Einstein's law of simultaneity is wrong. U will notice that initially he is standing at O1 a little over L/2 from the train (train length = L). Later he is standing at O2 a little less than L/2 from the train. The video says that in both cases he sees simultaneous flashes (they don't show O1 & O2, they are my invention)(& they don't actually refer to the two cases). They are correct, if he is standing still. But, he must have walked or run or jumped from O1 to O2, probably during the critical instant. In any case (3 cases in all), whether at O1 or at O2 or jumping in between (call this O12), he unquestionably (i think) sees simultaneous flashes. If so then the video is correct despite showing or inferring the 3 different cases. However, this falsifies Einstein's law of simultaneity, because in O12 he is moving. The video falsifies what it wanted to prove. Allow me to introduce madmac's imaginary train & ferris wheel (thought) experiment. There is a ferris wheel on the platform, turning in the plane of M & O1 & O2 & O12. Everyone on the ferris wheel will see that the two flashes are simultaneous if the wheel is stationary & if the wheel is turning. Unquestionably any observer anywhere in that plane will see simultaneity whether stationary or not. Einstein apparently ignored simultaneous events that have a plane of symmetry that splits the events, & every pair (2 events) has such a plane. The problem with Einstein's law is that it is badly worded. The wording should say that in some cases 2 relatively moving observers might both see simultaneity (of say flashes)(& of strikes), & they might see them flashes at the same time, but no such observers will deduce that their lightning strikes occurred at the same time as the other's. Here i should remind that a lightning flash is the tip of a ray of light that hits the eye, a lightning strike is a vertical movement of charge that hits the embankment or platform or (in the video) the end of the train. In this regard Einstein's explanation of events is sloppy, or at least the English translation is sloppy. Alby mentions (two strokes of lightning)(the rays of light emitted)(where the lightning occurs)(when the flashes of lightning occur)(the light rays emitted by the flashes of lightning)(the beam of light coming from)(the beam of light emitted from)(the lightning flash B took place earlier than the lightning flash A). This wording is not just sloppy, it is wrong. Earlier in his book, Alby mentions (if a ray of light be sent along the embankment)(the tip of the ray)(lightning has struck the rails)(these two lightning flashes occurred simultaneously)(both the lightning strokes occurred simultaneously)(if the observer perceives the two flashes of lighting at the same time then they are simultaneous). Is Alby trying to confuse us intentionally? Doesn't he know the difference tween a strike & a flash? It wouldn't be so bad if (having made the mistake of adopting the wrong word) he at least stuck to using it consistently throughout the book.

studio. Thanx for that link. Romer, & Huygens, & others. History is wonderful.

Einstein specifically banned grandfather clocks in relation to SR & GR, because they were based on a pendulum, which is a part of Earth's frame ( or something, cant remember). And re pendulums, Allais has some concerns also .

pzkpfw. I don't follow. If one takes Einstein's exact description of his train thought experiment, then u or i should be able to describe the events from the train-passengers viewpoint, simply by changing Einstein's wording, eg replacing embankment with train, & train with embankment, etc etc, & u reach the same conclusions. In this mirror-image sort of analysis the main player becomes the train-passenger, & she (its a she in the video) sees the flashes of any simultaneous lightning strikes simultaneously if she is midway (which she is). And of course here it doesn't make any difference whether the strikes hit the embankment (Einstein) or the train (video)(not that anyone said that it did, but just saying). The bomb paradox sort of thing never comes up in my mind, it only comes up if one believes that Einstein's time dilation & length dilation are real, which they are not. I almost remember the words of a Phd who is a solid Einsteinian & who believes that the M&M result was null etc etc (yes, the whole catastrophe), an expert at math, but wrote one of the most profound things about SR that i have seen, saying -- SR is merely a code for deciphering non-local information. These are my words, i don't remember the exact words & i cant find the article. The tricks & contortions in Einstein's code are there to give correct information, not to describe reality.

Bender. Make that 2 digits. Some sources report plus 0.7%, some minus 0.2%. A borehole analysis gave plus 1%. A Russian source found a curious variation of up to 0.7% over time. Prof Reg Cahill has measured turbulence of up to 20% (of speed or something) in what he calls Dynamic Space. And says that measurements of G (not by him) produce values that differ by nearly 40 times their error estimates. All of Cahill's 40 or so papers on Process Physics can be found in various sites on google, including Flinders University, & Mountain Man Graphics, & Physics arXiv. The one i was reading just now was Gravity as Quantum Foam Inflow (2003). Cahill says that Newton's inverse square law is only applicable for spherical symmetry & is therefor inapplicable to say spiral galaxies & Cavendish type experiments. Not forgetting the wild swings due to turbulence.

VanD. Yes i had read your post, sorry i forgot. I think that the video showing a short bullet-train with observer on platform approx. L/2 from train & with a non-understandable explanation of events, indeed a misleading explanation, is impossible to analyse. Properly explained it would be possible, albeit having to use non-zero Y co-ordinate info (messy). But if u move the platform-observer closer in so that he is kissing the window u now have Einstein's original thought experiment. Now its easy. U simply look at the whole thing in mirror-image, ie looking from the train-observer's point of view. In her frame she sees the 2 flashes simultaneously, & the platform-observer moving past, etc etc etc. Too easy.

Klaynos. There is lots of stuff out there re the problem with G. Final Demystifycation of the Gravitational Constant Variation -- is one. Do u know about the borehole anomaly??

Mordred. Can u name 100 theorys-articles in the last 10 years that contradict mainstream theory (ie published in mainstream journals). I will make it easier. Make that 10 articles in the last 20 years. Ok, here is my last offer, 1 article in the last 30 years. Re the math, what i look at is the postulate etc. The math might be perfect, but might give a perfectly wrong answer. Re the simplicity of math, u cannot get any simpler than aether theory. Here u take Lorentz (which is what Einstein did)(ok, he didn't know it at the time), & instead of some sort of silly M&M fixed aether (that Earth orbited or spun through), u inject a background aether-wind, which gives an absolute frame for velocity & time, & immediately u get a perfect solution to every GPS etc problem u can name, correct, first time, every time. Whereas SR & GR give a similar answer much of the time, & a perfect answer some of the time, which is not surprising because both theories use Pythagoras with sides equal to c & v etc. The background aether-wind is say 475 km/sec south to north say 20dg off Earth's spin axis, right ascension say 5 hours or something (i can show u say 20 papers from say 10 independent experimenters that give remarkable agreement). COBE gave a similar speed but a direction about 90dg different. That's ok, because Earth's aether-wind acts in our part of the galaxy, whereas COBE measured space in another part of the galaxy, or cosmos, or universe even. I thought that COBE & PLANCK & Co were a heap of rubbish (read Crothers & Robitaille) , but this bit of info has changed my mind. Ok here is the real dirt. Aether theory says that an absolute velocity field determines length dilation & (speed) a time dilation. Einsteinian theory says that an acceleration field affects length & time dilation (albeit with vel in the equation too). But re aether theory the observer is born on Earth, & the clock is made on Earth, hencely the absolute velocity of the aether is sort of irrelevant. What the observer & the clock feel is the change in the aether velocity field. The change in the velocity field is due to gravity, & aether gravity is a function of the aether acceleration field (aether accelerating into Earth & Sun & all matter). So now the observable aether effects & Einsteinian effects are almost the same, because their acceleration-gravity fields are very similar (identical even). Just think of the years & effort wasted with scientists scratching their heads when their lasers walk off, & their vacuum based M&M experiments give a null result, & when LIGO have to amp up their lasers to 100Kw, etc etc etc, when if they recognised the direction of the aether-wind they could orientate their apparatus (or make allowances) & get on with real advances. I don't want a war with mainstream, i don't want victory (which will come sooner than everyone thinks), i want science to simply admit it was wrong, & get on with some really good work. There is no need for winners & losers. I look forward to some thrilling science, before the end. swansont. Yes links are good, but as i say here in this forum i cant paste links (in fact i cant copy & paste into or out of or within this forum, & i cant use the quote box. & the forum is in my trusted sites). I post on only 3 other forums here on Earth & they never give any problems pasting text or pix or using the quote box. If a specific reference is critical of course i will give details & source. Mightbe i can type in the full link, i will see.

Sensei. Yes belief as a word gets some bad press in science circles, supposedly inferring lack of proof. But there is no such thing as absolute proof. Putting it another way, even if something is proven u still need faith in the proof. Oops, i think i did it again. But, there is no better word. Ezzat G Bakhoum has written at least 2 nice articles re lack of proof of E=mc^2. Why E=mc^2 Emerges in the Process of Neutron Capture (2007). This comments on Rainville's article in 2005 Nature, Bakhoum says that they only proved that delta m = delta kinetic energy. Fundamental Disagreement of Wave Mechanics with Relativity (2002). This explains why there is no energy shortfall in Beta decay, thusly neutrinos are not needed (here at least). Me, i don't believe that E=mc^2. I don't see how Lorentz length dilation can be legitimately used to arrive at it. However, if ever someone came up with a theory re change of mass with speed i would be happy to give it a good hearing. But it best have a good mechanical reason. And such a theory would almost certainly describe a loss of mass with speed (not a gain), real mass (not pseudo mass). And based on real speed, not some pseudo speed based on some arbitrary at-rest system. Real speed here being absolute speed (relative to the aether).

SiskosTheMan. But, that there equation has G in it. So, the answer merely changes the question to how do u find G.

What is space made of?? I don't think that Einstein said that there is no aether. I think i read that he said that SR & GR do not need an aether. Although almost certainly if there is an aether then SR cannot be, & if SR cannot be then GR falls also. On the other hand if SR & GR exist, then perhaps they don't necessarily disqualify the existence of some sort of aether. I believe in a sub-quantum aether, that is the foundation of the universe, & is thusly ponderable (ie not only can we see its handiwork, we can measure its vel). But we might all be wrong, what if some sort of sub-quantum aether existed that had no connection to our quantum world. It would be completely imponderable, & non-knowable, & i guess irrelevant. Just thinking out loud.

Tir21. I see that no-one has answered your question (the first post in the thread). Einstein in his 1905 article on relativity doesn't mention a train thought experiment, but he does analyse the same situation using imaginary rays of light & clocks & co-ordinate systems (with no paid observer as such), and somewhat later says ..... -- "It is clear that the same results hold good of bodies at rest in the stationary system, viewed from a system in uniform motion" -- although here he is talking moreso about his next idea down the line, & not forgetting that this is only an English translation of his German. But i have never seen a detailed analysis confirming the same results when viewed as u say by the passenger in a carriage at rest & with the platform & embankment moving past.