# The Post-modern Interpretation of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment

Table of Contents

- 1 Introduction
- 2 The Einstein’s Elevator Experiment and the Strong Equivalence Principle
- 3 The Criticism of the Modern Interpretation of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment
- 4 The Preliminary to the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment and the Universal Equivalence Principle
- 5 The Einstein’s Elevator Experiment and the Universal Equivalence Principle
- 6 Light and the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment
- 7 Conclusion

**Introduction **

In this scientific article, I want to talk about the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment (EEE) and I want to be as exhaustive as possible. I have talked about the post-modern interpretation of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment (EEE) in the Treatise and also in this scientific article.

But I want to dedicate this article to explaining this remarkable thought experiment first conceived by Albert Einstein and to show us how post-modern physics gives us a new understanding of it that is from what Einstein taught us.

Also, in this article, I will be exposing all the nuances of this experiment that I have overlooked before or not seriously reveal in my other discussions of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment (EEE).

The Einstein’s Elevator Experiment (EEE) was first conceived by Einstein himself in 1907 as he thought about how to extend his theory of special relativity which describes only uniform frames to accelerated frames.

From his conception of this thought experiment, he was able to discover *the principle of strong equivalence which states that gravitation and acceleration are equivalent.* He referred to this discovery of the strong equivalence principle as *“the happiest thought of his life”* and we will be discussing soon how it relates to the elevator experiment.

**Albert Einstein **

And now, in post-modern physics, I have discovered another principle called *the principle of universal equivalence and this principle states that the weak equivalence principle and the strong equivalence principle are equivalent.*

Now, I did not discover this principle by contemplating Einstein’s Elevator Experiment (EEE), in fact, I discovered this principle when I was studying the new metric for accelerated frames which has two forms of time in it.

I discovered that *the weak equivalence principle and the strong equivalence principle are equivalent* and it was a result of the newly discovered truth that no accelerating body can accelerate greater than gravity.

*So, Einstein discovered the strong equivalence principle when he contemplated the elevator experiment but I discovered the universal equivalence principle when I found out that no accelerating body can accelerate greater than gravity.*

*The discovery that gravity is an acceleration limit of the universe is what has led to the discovery of the new principle of universal equivalence. This is very important.*

It was after I had made this discovery of the universal equivalence principle that I approached the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment (EEE) and I found out something else about this experiment. I found out that something was missing all along and it is this something that changes how we understand this experiment.

Before I discuss the post-modern interpretation of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment (EEE), I want us to discuss the elevator experiment according to the strong equivalence principle which is what Einstein taught us about.

**The Einstein’s Elevator Experiment and the Strong Equivalence Principle**

The diagram below depicts the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment according to the strong equivalence principle and it will be referred to as we continue in this section.

**Modern Physics and the Strong Equivalence Principle**

In the explanation of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment according to the strong equivalence principle, we have that a man in an enclosed elevator accelerating upwards at *9.81 m/s** ^{2}* cannot tell if he were accelerating in the elevator or simply at rest on the Earth surface.

These two indistinguishable states of motion are what constitute what is referred to as the strong equivalence principle. It is quite simple until you criticize it using the insights from post-modern physics which we will do soon.

Now, the man or the observer in the enclosed elevator is assumed to be accelerating far away from the Earth and as such is not interacting in any way with the Earth’s gravitational field or with the gravitational field of any neighbouring mass.

So, the strong equivalence of the experience of the acceleration of the enclosed elevator with its possible state of rest on the Earth surface is founded on the assumption presented in the above paragraph.

The important question post-modern physics raises is: *is it possible to really isolate the enclosed elevator from any mass in the universe?* This question is so central as a criticism against Einstein’s interpretation of the elevator experiment that it exposes the flaws in Einstein’s interpretation of this thought experiment.

I will address this question in the next section where I will criticize the modern interpretation of this experiment.

So, if an object or a ball * b* is dropped in the enclosed elevator, as shown, the man or the observer in the elevator cannot tell if the object is falling due to the Earth’s gravity or due to the acceleration of the elevator.

According to Einstein, the strong equivalence principle ensures that the observer in the enclosed elevator cannot distinguish between the effects of gravity and those of acceleration. This is a very interesting thing to think about.

Now, post-modern physics criticizes this explanation or interpretation of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment and I want to show you why.

**The Criticism of the Modern Interpretation of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment **

Einstein’s strong equivalence principle is touted as a progress in our understanding of the universe from the weak equivalence principle and separate from it, and herein lies the error or incompleteness of the modern interpretation of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment.

The principle of universal equivalence raises the question: where is the weak equivalence principle in the modern interpretation of Einstein’s Elevator Experiment?

*The principle of universal equivalence informs us that the weak equivalence principle and the strong equivalence principle are equivalent and because of this the modern interpretation of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment cannot be the highest understanding of it.*

To describe the elevator experiment based on only the strong equivalence principle without the weak equivalence principle is what has led to the incomplete understanding of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment.

We can no longer continue to separate the weak and the strong equivalence principles from each other due to the complete understanding we now have of the universe. Post-modern physics is causing the much-needed synthesis of the different aspects and principles of the universe.

Now, it is because we cannot separate or isolate the weak equivalence principle from the strong equivalence principle that we cannot isolate the elevator from any other mass in the universe.

Remember, I queried the assumption in the modern interpretation of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment that the enclosed elevator could accelerate far from any other mass.

This is impossible as post-modern physics now informs us and it is due to the universal equivalence principle.

I want you to hold the above thought as we proceed to discuss and to further expose the flaws in the modern interpretation of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment in the preliminary to the discussion of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment based on the principle of universal equivalence.

**The Preliminary to the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment and the Universal Equivalence Principle**

I am now beginning to realize that there is probably no other experiment in physics that brings the whole seven absolute principles of the universe to a focus like the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment.

But for the sake of simplicity, I will only deal with how the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment brings three out of these seven absolute principles to a focus.

Now, *what are these three absolute principles?* These three absolute principles are:

**1.** The principle of non-inertia

**2.** The principle of universal equivalence

**3.** The orthogonality principle

These three principles above are shown in the order that they will be presented in this scientific article and the relevance of the principle of non-inertia for the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment will be discussed in this section of this scientific article.

A good look at Einstein’s reason for proposing the strong equivalence principle shows that Einstein was looking for a principle of accelerated motion that is just as similar to the principle of inertia for uniform motion.

This is why when he found out that being at *rest* in the enclosed elevator on the Earth surface is equivalent to being in *accelerated motion* in the enclosed elevator far away from the Earth, he rejoiced because the principle of strong equivalence is similar to the principle of inertia which makes us know that rest and uniform motion are equivalent.

So, Einstein’s proposal of the strong equivalence principle is not entirely a misguided attempt. He was really thinking like a physicist and it is no wonder he was able to build the theory of general relativity based on his discovered principle of strong equivalence.

*But now post-modern physics is informing us that the principle of strong equivalence cannot be taken as the fundamental principle of accelerated motion as Einstein thought. What should be taken as the fundamental principle of accelerated motion is the principle of non-inertia.*

*This principle of non-inertia is what informs us that accelerated rest and accelerated motion are equivalent or indistinguishable.* This principle is very fundamental and it is associated with the principle of universal equivalence in our understanding of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment.

(Remember that in post-modern physics we have two forms of rest in the universe, uniform rest and accelerated rest, and they are equivalent due to the zero proportion of inertia that underlies both of them.

But in this scientific article, I will mostly apply the term rest just like modern physics and only make mention of accelerated rest when absolutely necessary, and besides, the two forms of rest are equivalent according to the correspondence principle.)

*The absence of the principle of non-inertia in the modern interpretation of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment is another crucial reason for its incompleteness beside the absence of the weak equivalence principle already mentioned in the previous section.*

Why this principle of non-inertia is important is because it is what establishes the **sensational equivalence** between the case of the observer in the enclosed elevator at accelerated rest on the Earth surface and when he is in accelerated motion.

*The principle of non-inertia is taken as primary in post-modern physics and it is what is first satisfied before we proceed to how the principle of universal equivalence is involved in the interpretation of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment.*

The observer when in the enclosed elevator at rest on the Earth surface senses his state of rest which is taken in post-modern physics as inertia and not weight and when he is in accelerated motion, he senses his force of acceleration.

The equivalence of his sensations of accelerated rest and accelerated motion is due to the principle of non-inertia. And the weak phase of the principle of non-inertia is what is said to exactly apply in the case where a body senses its state of motion.

(In a soon coming scientific article, I will explain *why inertia is what we sense and not our weight* as we have thought all this while in classical and modern physics. And you can get a hint of why this is so from this my scientific article on the true nature of force.)

Now, it after the principle of non-inertia has established a **sensational equivalence** between the two cases of the observer in an enclosed elevator at rest on the Earth surface and when in accelerated motion, that we now look at the **mathematical equivalence** of both cases as exposed by the principle of strong equivalence.

*It is important to know that in post-modern physics, the principle of non-inertia is a cornerstone principle of accelerated motion that is an offshoot of the orthogonality principle, but the principle of universal equivalence is a result of the fact that gravity is an acceleration limit of the universe.*

I have decided to refer to the equivalence of both cases considered due to the principle of non-inertia as *sensational equivalence* and the equivalence of both cases due to the principle of universal equivalence as *mathematical equivalence*.

Referring to the principle of universal equivalence as a *mathematical equivalence* is borne out of how mathematical the principle of universal equivalence is in post-modern physics. In fact, it can be presented for the two cases being discussed as,

But *the above universal equivalence principle is not what causes the sensational equivalence between both cases of the observer in the enclosed elevator at rest on the Earth surface and when in accelerated motion but the principle of non-inertia.*

*Mathematical equality* is not a proposition that should be undermined in post-modern physics, as in post-modern physics, the mathematics of quality is what is upheld and it is a more real and tangible form of mathematics.

So, as I have said, it is after the principle of non-inertia has been satisfied that we proceed to discuss how the principle of universal equivalence applies to the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment (EEE) and we do so in the exact manner that the strong equivalence principle was made to apply.

Furthermore, I made mention of the orthogonality principle above and you may be wondering why. The orthogonality principle is important when we want to discuss how light is truly related to the acceleration of the enclosed elevator.

It is important to know that the modern interpretation bases its description of this relationship on linearity, in that it informs us that a ray of light moving from one end of the enclosed elevator to the other end will deviate from linearity and this insight is what was extended in general relativity to be that the path of light bends due to gravity.

I will discuss the role of the orthogonality principle in a section of its own which would be after the next section on the post-modern interpretation of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment (EEE) based on the universal principle of equivalence.

Before we proceed, the other two listed and discussed absolute principles in this section should have made it clear that the universal equivalence principle is just a part of the post-modern interpretation of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment and not the whole of it like the strong equivalence principle is the whole of the modern interpretation of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment.

**The Einstein’s Elevator Experiment and the Universal Equivalence Principle**

In the post-modern interpretation of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment (EEE), the weak equivalence principle is incorporated alongside the strong equivalence principle. This is why the post-modern interpretation of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment is based on the universal equivalence principle.

The diagram below depicts the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment according to the strong equivalence principle.

**Post-modern Physics and the Universal Equivalence Principle**

When you look at the above diagram, you will see that both the rest mass **M***_{r}* and the inertial mass

**M***of the Earth now play a significant role in the interpretation of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment.*

_{i}This is what was missing in the modern interpretation of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment based on only the strong equivalence principle and that makes no mention of the weak equivalence principle.

There is no mention of the role that rest mass and inertial mass play in the interpretation of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment and it is how the weak equivalence principle comes into the explanation of the experiment.

But when we take note of this and make a move to rectify the situation, we will find out that we would inevitably have to include the weak equivalence principle into the explanation of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment (EEE) as already implied.

This is what post-modern physics has done, and according to post-modern physics, *for the case shown on the left where the enclosed elevator is on the Earth surface, it is resting on the rest mass M_{r} of the Earth. This is what post-modern physics refers to as rest interaction.*

*And for the case shown on the right where the enclosed elevator is accelerating upwards, it is accelerating away from the inertial mass M_{i} of the Earth. This is what post-modern physics refers to as inertial interaction.*

So, *just as the rest mass of the Earth is connected to the state of rest of the enclosed elevator on the Earth surface, so also is the inertial mass of the Earth connected to the state of acceleration of the enclosed elevator.*

The above is the evident statement of the unity or the equivalence of the weak and the strong equivalence principles.

In the post-modern interpretation of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment (EEE), the observer in the enclosed elevator cannot accelerate far away from mass. In fact, the inertial mass of the Earth is so connected to the acceleration of the enclosed elevator that it can be said to be the cause of it. This is what the whole idea of inertial interaction implies.

Therefore, in post-modern physics, the observer cannot distinguish between being at rest on the Earth’s rest mass or being in acceleration away from the Earth’s inertial mass due to the principle of universal equivalence.

In post-modern physics, the observer cannot distinguish between being at rest on the Earth's rest mass or being in acceleration away from the Earth's inertial mass due to the principle of universal equivalence.Click To TweetThe above is the true and complete understanding of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment based on the principle of universal equivalence.

Now, in the post-modern interpretation of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment, an object or a ball * b* dropped inside the enclosed elevator falls towards the inertial mass of the Earth for both cases where the enclosed elevator is at rest and in acceleration.

This, as you may already know, is because of the inseparable connection between acceleration and inertial mass as exposed by the principle of universal equivalence.

But for the case on the left where the object * b* falls towards the inertial mass of the Earth in the resting enclosed elevator, it is falling towards an inertial mass of the Earth that has the same magnitude as the rest mass of the Earth.

However, for the case on the right where the object falls towards the inertial mass of the Earth in the accelerating enclosed elevator, it is falling towards an inertial mass of the Earth that does not necessarily have the same magnitude as the rest mass of the Earth.

This is because for the enclosed elevator in acceleration, it is in free motion and only a varying inertial mass of the Earth can preserve its acceleration of *9.81 m/s** ^{2}* at any distance away from the Earth.

The above is as a result of the above explanation and depiction of the rest mass and the inertial mass of the Earth which is such that their center of mass coincide.

But we can still preserve the condition where the inertial mass of the Earth is always equal to its rest mass. In this case, the center of the rest mass of the Earth and the center of inertial mass of the Earth do not coincide as the inertial mass of the Earth can be moved freely with the enclosed elevator in acceleration.

The above is what was depicted in the Treatise and also in this scientific article on gravity though it was not specifically mentioned.

In this scientific article, we let the inertial mass vary from the rest mass as the enclosed elevator is free to accelerate at any radial distance away from the inertial mass of the Earth.

But in another case, we can let the inertial mass to always be equal to the rest mass of the Earth as the enclosed elevator is not free to accelerate at any radial distance away from the inertial mass of the Earth.

All these are obviously because inertial interaction is not really as rigid and fixed as rest interaction which bounds the enclosed elevator within a particular radial distance and on the constant rest mass of the Earth.

So, according to the post-modern interpretation of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment (EEE), the weak and the strong equivalence principles are involved but the observer in the enclosed elevator cannot possibly distinguish between the two because they are equivalent.

On the Earth surface, he is resting on the rest mass of the Earth, but when he accelerates, he is accelerating away from the inertial mass of the Earth and there is no way he can know these things in the enclosed elevator.

*So, in post-modern physics, the enclosed elevator cannot accelerate far from any other mass, and post-modern physics informs us that it is inertial mass that is even responsible for the acceleration of the enclosed elevator.*

Furthermore, one can guess that we are only associating the inertial mass of the Earth with the rest mass of the Earth in this explanation of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment and the universal equivalence principle because we are dealing with the acceleration value of *9.81 m/s ^{2}*.

Also, when you look at the left-hand side of the diagram for the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment and the universal equivalence principle, you will see that gravity has been replaced with something else called rest gravity or *rest acceleration* * g_{r}*.

This new concept of rest gravity or *rest acceleration* * g_{r}* is what is related to rest mass and this is as gravity has taken a broader essence as an acceleration limit of the universe.

In modern physics, gravity would have been what is related to rest mass. This is not the case in post-modern physics because in post-modern physics *gravity is an acceleration limit which encompasses rest gravity g_{r} and acceleration.*

By understanding the new relationship rest gravity has with rest mass and the one acceleration has with inertial mass, it becomes easy to see how *post-modern physics has modified the strong equivalence principle to be that rest gravity and acceleration are equivalent.*

You can read about this in this scientific article so that I won’t have to repeat myself as we proceed to discuss the relationship light has with the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment.

**Light and the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment**

From Einstein’s conception of the elevator experiment, he was able to deduce that a ray of light moving from one end of the enclosed elevator will deviate from linearity as it approaches the other end, as shown below.

**Light and the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment**

Now, due to the strong equivalence principle, this implies that gravity can deviate the path of light from linearity or curve the path of light. Einstein following this thought gave us one of the most popular predictions in physics that light around the Sun bends due to the Sun’s gravitational field.

This prediction was reportedly verified in 1919 by an astronomical observation made by Arthur Eddington during a solar eclipse.

But now post-modern physics is confronting this prediction and reported observation and it is doing so in a way that is different from how we would have thought or considered.

Listen: *the relationship between light and the universal equivalence principle or the post-modern interpretation of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment (EEE) is what makes us recognize deeply the ascended understanding of the universe post-modern physics provides.*

This ascended understanding of the universe is metaphysical and not physical as it has been in classical and modern physics. So, when we want to understand what happens to light in the enclosed elevator, we have to look into the metaphysical nature of the universe. This is unavoidable.

In my discussion of the post-modern interpretation of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment so far, it seems as though both the post-modern interpretation and the modern interpretation are at the same physical level.

This is not true. I only avoided making any reference to the metaphysical nature of post-modern physics only when necessary as it is now the case. Also, it is now easy for you to realize the importance of post-modern physics.

For without even making mention or directly referring to its metaphysical foundation, I have enlightened you about the true understanding of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment beyond what modern physics informs you about it.

This goes to show how important the inputs of post-modern physics are to our understanding of the universe even when we make no reference to its metaphysical nature.

So, in the modern interpretation of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment, it is said that light deviates from linearity but in the post-modern interpretation of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment (EEE), it is said that light deviates from orthogonality.

Both are not on the same level of understanding. The modern interpretation is physical but the post-modern interpretation is metaphysical. And it is only in the metaphysical approach can we see the real connection between light and the acceleration of the enclosed elevator.

Classical and modern physics are founded on the study of motion as it exhibits linearity or deviations from it, but post-modern physics is founded on the study of motion as it exhibits orthogonality or deviations from it.

The former is what constitutes our understanding of relative motion whereas the latter is what constitutes our understanding of absolute motion.

Now, in post-modern physics, the enclosed elevator is accelerating in accelerated space and as such is moving with respect to gravi-electromagnetic wave and not with respect to light as an independent non-mechanical wave.

Therefore, light has no real connection with the motion of the enclosed elevator. This is also supported by the metaphysical truth that light or the electromagnetic moves in uniform space and it is in uniform space that the enclosed elevator would have moved with respect to light if it were moving in uniform motion, but it isn’t.

Looking at the deviation of the path of light from linearity is a physical observation that has no real significance for our understanding of the universe and it has no connection with gravity.

For as you will see in post-modern physics, the deviation of light from orthogonality in the enclosed elevator is not due to gravity at all as light and gravity are orthogonal components of gravi-electromagnetic wave in accelerated space.

This is against the modern interpretation of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment (EEE) where light deviates from linearity due to gravity. In the post-modern interpretation of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment, light deviates from orthogonality and it is not due to gravity.

In the post-modern interpretation of the Einstein's Elevator Experiment, light deviates from orthogonality and it is not due to gravity.Click To TweetThe latter is important because it is metaphysical and it has a lot to do with the true nature of the universe. The former doesn’t.

Now, the observation of the deviation of light from linearity is not the same as the observation of the deviation of light from orthogonality. *While the observation of the deviation of light is external and purely geometrical, the observation of the deviation of light from orthogonality is internal and purely experiential.*

How? The deviation of light from orthogonality is deeply associated with the sensation of inertia for the observer accelerating in the enclosed elevator. This is how the observer comes to know that light is deviating from orthogonality.

This is obviously different from how the observer can come to know that light deviates from linearity by directly observing how light approaches the two inner walls of the enclosed elevator and which is not associated with his sensation of inertia or his accelerated motion.

It is important to see that in the modern interpretation of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment, the deviation of light from linearity is not associated with the sensation of accelerated motion by the observer in the enclosed elevator.

But in the post-modern interpretation of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment, the deviation from orthogonality is associated with the sensation of accelerated motion by the observer in the enclosed elevator.

So far, we have discussed the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment as it would occur in the ponderable world outside the atom, but if we investigate as it would occur in the atomic world, some things change in our interpretation, especially with regards to how the principle of non-inertia and the orthogonality principle apply to the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment.

In the atomic world, light always maintains orthogonality and never deviates from it, and if the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment were to be carried out in the atomic world, then the observer would find out that his non-sensation of inertia is associated with the preservation of orthogonality by light.

The above is how the orthogonality principle applies differently to light and the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment inside the atomic world.

However, the universal equivalence principle applies the same in both worlds, so the explanation of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment (EEE) based on the universal equivalence principle presented above is universal or common to both the atomic and the non-atomic worlds.

Only the orthogonality principle and the principle of non-inertia apply differently. This is where you will find out that we can keep the interpretation of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment (EEE) simple only when we focus on the universal equivalence principle.

When we go deeper, the other aspects of the experiment that require the absolute interpretation that post-modern physics provides become necessary.

It is with this thought I can let you know that the deviation of light from orthogonality is a result that becomes observable and that depends on whether the enclosed elevator is accelerated unnaturally by itself or not.

If the enclosed elevator is accelerated unnaturally by itself, then the deviation of light from orthogonality becomes observable as the observer in the enclosed elevator will sense inertia.

But if the enclosed elevator is accelerated naturally by the gravi-electromagnetic field, then the deviation of light from orthogonality becomes unobservable as the observer in the enclosed elevator will not sense inertia which is now due to the fact that gravity maintains orthogonality.

So, in post-modern physics and outside the atomic world, it is a certain, unchanging metaphysical truth that light deviates from orthogonality in accelerated space while gravity maintains orthogonality in accelerated space.

Our focus on the fact that light deviates from orthogonality in this scientific article is because of its contradiction with the prediction of general relativity that it deviates from linearity.

*So, in the modern interpretation of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment (EEE), light deviates from linearity in the enclosed elevator, but in the post-modern interpretation, light deviates from orthogonality in the enclosed elevator and it is associated with the sensation of inertia by the observer.*

The above is one of the things that I want you to understand from this section and I want you to know that the post-modern interpretation cannot be completely understood from this article alone, you will have to get the Treatise so that you can see how the nature of light changes when we study the metaphysical nature of the universe.

The prediction of the linear deviation of light is a prediction without any relevance to our understanding of the universe. It is purely physical and we no longer understand the universe according to the physical but according to the metaphysical.

But in order for you see the futility of the prediction that light deviates from linearity, you have to understand that the nature of light that is important for the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment is the nature of light as a component of gravi-electromagnetic wave which is superluminal.

So, how can we probe this nature of light by physical observation? This is what confronts our former notion of the fundamentality of the deviation of light from linearity and its relationship to the truth.

It is only in post-modern physics that the nature of light as a component of the superluminal gravi-electromagnetic wave and that is relevant for our understanding of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment is given its true interpretation.

**Conclusion**

I have thought about writing a crucial discussion in this scientific article, but after it all, I see no reason to as I have included in the previous sections the important nuances that surround the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment (EEE) even though I did not treat all of them in detail.

The Einstein’s Elevator Experiment is very necessary for us to understand the universe and it is in this regard important that we have the true interpretation of it.

What Einstein taught us about this his thought experiment is an incomplete understanding of it and we are now realizing the complete understanding of the experiment because of post-modern physics.

Einstein interpreted the experiment based on the strong equivalence principle, but in post-modern physics, we are interpreting the experiment based on the universal equivalence principle and we go further to involve two important principles of motion to it, which are the principle of non-inertia and the orthogonality principle.

The principle of non-inertia is a primary principle that establishes sensational equality in the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment while the principle of universal equivalence is what establishes mathematical equality in the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment.

The orthogonality principle becomes involved when we want to probe what happens to light in the enclosed elevator and in a gravitational field.

The relevance of the above three principles have been discussed in this scientific article and I assure you that they go a long way in assisting you with the true understanding of this experiment.

The true understanding of this experiment is very connected to some of the anomalies observed in physics, especially the flyby anomaly.

* The flyby anomaly can only be explained by the universal equivalence principle which has been applied in this scientific article to explain the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment. I want you to read the linked article in order to understand how the principle of universal equivalence explains the flyby anomaly.*

Furthermore, the new interpretation of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment based on the universal equivalence principle is what changes our approach to the understanding of the relativity of accelerated frames from that based on curved geometry to that based on Euclidean geometry.

The discovery of the universal equivalence principle is what forces us to return to the possible Euclidean description of all frames, both uniform and accelerated frames. Thus, we should no longer base uniform and accelerated frames on two different geometries, Euclidean and Riemannian geometries.

This new framework for describing accelerated frames based on Euclidean geometry and which is a branch of absolute relativity is what is referred to as gravi-electrodynamics and it is the replacement of general relativity which describes accelerated frames based on Riemman geometry.

It is only by arriving at the true interpretation of the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment that we can really honour this great thought of one man, Albert Einstein, who by this thought experiment first revealed to us the strong equivalence principle which is distinct from the weak equivalence principle.

And now we have gone further to unify both equivalence principles as the principle of universal equivalence which now gives truth and a complete scientific status to the Einstein’s Elevator Experiment.

Until next time,

I will be here.

– M. V. Echa