A neodium magnet falling through a copper pipe has its rate of descent, through the pipe, slowed. An effect similar to a magnet being pushed through a copper solenoid. Inserted here is a 3 drawing illustration showing top and 3/4 views of an experimental setup that tries to duplicate the copper pipes` "electro"-magnetic interaction on the falling magnet. In these illustrations Ive tried to replicate the effect of copper being moved past the magnet by having 5 rotating copper rimmed wheels with their rims pointing inwards in a star pattern as best seen in the top view section of the illustration.

The intent of this design is to try to rotate all 5 of the copper rimmed wheels at the same steady speed. Fast enough to levitate the magnet. Presumably varying the speed of rotation will change the height of the magnet . Not included in these illustrations is a means by which to constrain the magnet from flipping or moving away from the central axis , marked x in the illustrations. To do this maybe a vertical transparent plastic tube around the magnet could be added. To keep the magnet positioned above the axis but free to move up and down.

Light from double star system is consistent with emission theory

Supplied illustration refers to the wikipedia /de sitter illustration from the wiki page on emmision theory refutation, showing light coming off of the rotating star at c+v (in the illustration frame)
This illustration shows how the light , although travelling at a constant c+v in the illustration frame,
is also travelling at variable speeds relative to the rotatng star source. This contradicts what is observed in MMx. In MMx light is shown to always travel at the same speed in all directions in the source frame.

The straight line across the illustration is the path of the "photon". The circular line is the path of the rotating stellar source. The numbers refer to where the light will be for each time frame where the time frame is an equal series of lengths of time .
So in frame 1 the light is just leaving the star. In frame 2 the light has travelled distance x from the source at (c+v) and the source has rotated 1/4 turn . In frame 3 the light has travelled the same distance x again and the light source has rotated another turn. Etc etc.
If one then takes the edge of a piece of paper and measures the orange  lines linking 2-2, 3-3, 4-4, and 5-5 and then compares the lengths of each of them . One will find that the lengths are all different.
(1-2 is shorter than 2-3. 3-4 is shorter than 2-3 but longer than 1-2 and 4-5)
This shows that the distance travelled by the light from the source is travelling at a variable  speed, relative to the source. Even though it is observed to be travelling at a constant speed c+v in the reference frame of the illustration .
In other words the illustration in wiki that this refers to is incorrect. Light does not travel at variable
speeds relative to the source. MMx shows us this and in fact there is no known experimental observation that shows that light travels at variable speeds relative to the source.
A correct illustration would be of the light source not moving and the earth/observor moving in a circular motion on the page. This would then show us that light does not pile up as it leaves the source. It would only have a doppler shift added to it at the point of observation.

Fizeau experiment results contradict Special Relativity

In the Fizeau experiment light travels at c/n (in the refractive index of water) when the water doesnt move through the experimental setup . But when the water flows at v through the setup towards the light source, as Fizeau did, the light travels at a slower speed through the pipe. But not by as much as if one subtracted the v of the water from c/n in water. This means that if you were to move with the water during the experiment (or better, you and the tube of water dont move and the light source does) then that means that the light is no longer moving through the water at c in the refractive index of water . And instead it is moving slightly faster or slower through the water then c in water would normally give. Depending on the direction of the flow of the water relative to the source. The irony of this is that, although Einstein apparently said this effect was an important consideration in devising SR. It also is true, that the Fizeau effect is proof that the speed of light in water can be c+-v, if the source moves relative to the observor. Contradicting the prediction of SR that light is always travelling at c for that medium.

The speed of light defined by the usual (Fizeau formula) is..
c/n +-v(1-1/n^2),..where (1-1/n^2) =0.4347
This accurately predicts the observations.

In effect what is happening is that in the same amount of time t, as when the water doesn’t flow, more water has to be travelled through by the lightbeam as it travels from source to detector. This means that the water becomes more dense as a refractive medium. So a classical calculation should reflect this by multiplying the refractive index by the refractive index to find out how the added v of the water affects the light speed.
Aside from Fizeau’s original formula, cited above, there are various other fairly straightforward ways to calculate the observed speed differences in Fizeau that I have formulated. Including:

c/n+-v{n^2-n}
where {n^2-n} = 0.4389

Or: c/n+-v[{(n-1)+(n-1)}^2] 

Or: c/n+-(V x (1-(n-1)/n)

      (c/n+-(V x .67))/n