John Norton, high priest in the Einstein Cult, exposes theoretical physicists ("later writers") as blatant liars. They use the Michelson-Morley experiment "as support for the light postulate", 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

"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

Needless to say, John Norton is a liar himself. Einstein was not innocent - he was the author of the hoax. In 1921, already a deity, Einstein proclaimed that the Michelson-Morley experiment had proved constancy of the speed of light. Due to its divine origin, the blatant lie immediately became absolute truth and has been universally taught ever since:

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

Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

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 2023-08-22 10:59:41 +0000, Pentcho Valev said:

> 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.

says the Dean of pathological liars at sci.phys.relativity. Why does
anyone take him seriously (as apparently some do)?

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

On Tuesday, 22 August 2023 at 13:41:54 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-08-22 10:59:41 +0000, Pentcho Valev said:
>
> > 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.
> says the Dean of pathological liars at sci.phys.relativity. Why does
> anyone take him seriously (as apparently some do)?

Even if he is - the lies of your bunch of idiots remain
pathetic.

On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:41:54 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-08-22 10:59:41 +0000, Pentcho Valev said:
>
> > 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.
> says the Dean of pathological liars at sci.phys.relativity. Why does
> anyone take him seriously (as apparently some do)?
>
> --
> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
Valev essentially refutes relativity regardless of any minor details that may be off. He says you can't change the wavelengths or dilate time instead of allowing a frequency change to claim light speed is c regardless of relative motion. That is why relativity is nonsense. You fail to refute his case. No relativist here has successfully defended relativity in the least.

On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:41:54 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-08-22 10:59:41 +0000, Pentcho Valev said:
>
> > 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.
> says the Dean of pathological liars at sci.phys.relativity. Why does
> anyone take him seriously (as apparently some do)?
>
> --
> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
The lie is when relativity says you can change the wavelengths or dilate time instead of allowing a frequency change to claim light speed is c regardless of relative motion.

On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 4:41:54 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-08-22 10:59:41 +0000, Pentcho Valev said:
>
> > 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.
> says the Dean of pathological liars at sci.phys.relativity. Why does
> anyone take him seriously (as apparently some do)?
>
> --
> athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots
I like criticizing pseudoscience like UFOs Bigfoot and relativity. Einstein was a crackpot.

On 8/23/2023 2:02 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> Valev essentially refutes relativity regardless of any minor details that may be off.

Or major detail which are off.

On Wednesday, 23 August 2023 at 23:36:51 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 8/23/2023 2:02 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> > Valev essentially refutes relativity regardless of any minor details that may be off.
> Or major detail which are off.

And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy
is some "Newton mode"? You're such an agnorant idiot,
stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your
moronic religion.