Albert Einstein: "If the speed of light depends even in the least on the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity, including the theory of gravitation, is wrong." https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol5-trans/376

The speed of light does depend on the speed of the source, as per Newton:

"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

So in 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v. The crucial question is:

Was the experiment simultaneously, in 1887, compatible with the constant speed of light, c'=c, posited by the ether theory and "borrowed" by Einstein in 1905?

The answer "yes" is too blatantly fraudulent, even by the standards of the Einstein cult, so Einsteinians don't discuss this question. Only Banesh Hoffmann did, but his implicit answer was "no":

"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

John Norton unwittingly exposes Einsteinians ("later writers") as blatant liars. They use the Michelson-Morley experiment "as support for the light postulate of special relativity", knowing that this experiment is "fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate":

John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

Understandably, John Norton, a high priest in the Einstein cult, is trying to exonerate Einstein. Actually, Einstein was the author of the Michelson-Morley-experiment hoax - he devised it in 1921:

The New York Times, April 19, 1921: "The special relativity arose from the question of whether light had an invariable velocity in free space, he [Einstein] said. The velocity of light could only be measured relative to a body or a co-ordinate system. He sketched a co-ordinate system K to which light had a velocity C. Whether the system was in motion or not was the fundamental principle. This has been developed through the researches of Maxwell and Lorentz, the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light having been based on many of their experiments. But did it hold for only one system? he asked. He gave the example of a street and a vehicle moving on that street. If the velocity of light was C for the street was it also C for the vehicle? If a second co-ordinate system K was introduced, moving with the velocity V, did light have the velocity of C here? When the light traveled the system moved with it, so it would appear that light moved slower and the principle apparently did not hold. Many famous experiments had been made on this point. Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1, the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled? Professor Einstein asked." https://ebay.com/itm/ALBERT-EINSTEIN-Lecture-on-SPEED-OF-LIGHT-Time-1st-Visit-to-US-1921-Newspaper/373400655156

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote:
> John Norton unwittingly exposes Einsteinians ("later writers") as blatant
> liars. They use the Michelson-Morley experiment "as support for the light
> postulate of special relativity", knowing that this experiment is "fully
> compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate":
>

Pentcho has a boneheaded idea that an experimental result can support one
and only one theory. If two theories have different premises, he believes,
then they cannot possibly predict the same outcome in any selected
experiment. Thus, he thinks, if Michelson-Morley supports a ballistic
theory of light, then it cannot possibly also support special relativity.

Pentcho is, of course, an idiot on this score and has persisted this same
error for decades.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 6:28:32 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:

> So in 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v. The crucial question is:
>

Imbecile,

MMX and KTX are compatible with both SR and Ballistic Theory
IS (Ives Stilwell) is compatible with SR and FALSIFIES Ballistic Theory
It is IS that decides which theory is true (SR) and which one is false (BT)