The interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment I referred to is the standard one: It is assumed that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source (a false assumption, as it will turn out), then calculations are made based on this assumption and in the end the times for the light moving in the direction of the motion and the light moving in the direction perpendicular to the motion are CALCULATED to be DIFFERENT, in contradiction with the experimental result showing that these times are EQUAL.

My calculations are just based on a different assumption - I initially assume that the speed of light varies with the speed of the light source as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. Now the times for the light moving in the direction of the motion and the light moving in the direction perpendicular to the motion are CALCULATED to be EQUAL, in conformity with the experimental result showing that these times are EQUAL.

This means that in 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally confirmed that the speed of light is c'=c±v, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, and refuted the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source. Of course Einsteinians are free to start singing "Divine Einstein" and explain why, after 1887, "contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations" had to be involved in the interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann: "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."

Pentcho Valev