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 light source, as posited by Newton's theory. Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's collaborator, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the
Michelson-Morley experiment directly proved Newton's variable speed of light and disproved the constant speed of light:

"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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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 posited by Newton's theory:

https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f10f1c25528a4e5edc9bae200640f31c-pjlq

"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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The texts below imply that, if the speed of light depends on the speed of the emitter (it does!), physics, based on Einstein's constant-speed-of-light fraud, is long dead (exists in a zombie state):

"He opened by explaining how Einstein's theory of relativity is the foundation of every other theory in modern physics and that the assumption that the speed of light is constant is the foundation of that theory. Thus a constant speed of light is
embedded in all of modern physics and to propose a varying speed of light (VSL) is worse than swearing! It is like proposing a language without vowels." http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/VSLRevPrnt.html

"If there's one thing every schoolboy knows about Einstein and his theory of relativity, it is that the speed of light in vacuum is constant. No matter what the circumstances, light in vacuum travels at the same speed...The speed of light is the very
keystone of physics, the seemingly sure foundation upon which every modern cosmological theory is built, the yardstick by which everything in the universe is measured...The constancy of the speed of light has been woven into the very fabric of physics,
into the way physics equations are written, even into the notation used. Nowadays, to "vary" the speed of light is not even a swear word: It is simply not present in the vocabulary of physics." https://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/
dp/0738205257

"The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light...So we had to find ways to change the speed of light without wrecking the whole thing too much." https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8q87gk/light-speed-slowed

Nowadays the death of physics is so obvious that it has even entered popular culture:

Leonard: "I know I said physics is dead, but it is the opposite of dead. If anything, it is undead, like a zombie." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDNP9KOEdh0

Dead physics means dying civilization. Are you killing the civilization, theoretical physicists?

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

Pentcho Valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)