So theoretical physicists "almost universally" teach that the Michelson-Morley experiment has disproved Newton's variable speed of light, and John Norton, high priest in the Einstein Cult, reveals that this is a blatant lie. Two questions:

1. Why is Norton doing this? Isn't it dangerous for the Einstein Cult?

2. Why has nobody come to the obvious conclusion: "Since in 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v, it was incompatible with the constant speed of light, c'=c, posited by the ether theory and "borrowed" by Einstein in 1905."

Answering both questions: Theoretical physics has been dead for a long time, so criticising it, like beating a dead horse, is pointless. No danger for the Einstein Cult. Norton just likes to startle brothers Einsteinians sometimes by telling the truth. Here is another example:

John Norton: "[Maxwell's] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf

Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:02:58 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> So theoretical physicists "almost universally" teach that the Michelson-Morley experiment has disproved Newton's variable speed of light, and John Norton, high priest in the Einstein Cult, reveals that this is a blatant lie.. Two questions:
>
> 1. Why is Norton doing this? Isn't it dangerous for the Einstein Cult?
>
> 2. Why has nobody come to the obvious conclusion: "Since in 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v, it was incompatible with the constant speed of light, c'=c, posited by the ether theory and "borrowed" by Einstein in 1905."
>
> Answering both questions: Theoretical physics has been dead for a long time, so criticising it, like beating a dead horse, is pointless. No danger for the Einstein Cult. Norton just likes to startle brothers Einsteinians sometimes by telling the truth. Here is another example:
>
> John Norton: "[Maxwell's] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer." http://www..pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
>
> Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Earman, Stachel, and Norton or "the three Johns" are sort of part of a school of
American philosophers in physics that sort of follow for John Corcoran and axiomless
natural deduction that they're pretty strong philosophers.

It doesn't seem to make sense to confuse the principles of special relativity not holding
with them instead not being local and being that locally they hold while it's the relative
motions and content of the space that determines what their "variation", of velocities,
are, with respect to both Doppler and also FitzGerald or space contraction and as about
Fresnel and large objects. Einstein also in "Out of my Later Years" or "Einstein's final,
final theory" also spells out "SR is local".

They're among the stronger sorts of philosophers, but, making for apologetics and
reconciling relativity theory with flat space-time, is more for showing how the patchwork
arises as from resonance theory above particle-wave duality and about General Relativity
that space contraction is real then for putting QM and GR together with a fall gravity
thus that it's a continuum mechanics together and fundamentally down to potentials,
it's a theory of true potentials, also a gauge theory of course, and unified in the quantum
field theory, then about relating kinetics and charge, and optics and the radionuclear.

That is, it can result a pretty simple theory, but, it's a continuum mechanics, so, that's
a pretty involved bit to arrive at a mathematics and logic with replete definitions of
continuity, then for the super-classical and wave resonance and such and maximums
in media in propagation, that then as a continuum mechanics is for a simpler foundations.

The theoretical physicist is sort of like a design engineer,
a near-mythical creature that makes flying machines from paper.

Einstein in "Out of My Later Years", describes his
practical approach to the roles and limitations of
the "model physicst" and "model philosopher",
while he sort of has the benefits of both.

The d'Espagnat and so on, about "intersubjectivity"
for the objective realism, sort of heralds modern
super-classical approaches in physics, or as with
regards to that he'd be aware of "the real wave"
and whatever causally result "hidden variables".
Though often quoted variously, Einstein also was.