It is wrongly taught in physics that the wavelength of light, just like the wavelength of sound, VARIES with the speed of the emitter:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M

Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary." http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/s...ry_of_time.pdf

This variation of the wavelength of light contradicts the principle of relativity. If the wavelength varied, by measuring it, Zoe (the emitter) would know how fast she is moving, without any reference to outside objects:

https://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einste...eird_logic.htm

The wavelength does not vary with Zoe's speed - accordingly, Jasper (the receiver) measures the speed of light to be c'=c+v, not c. The truth is Newtonian, not Einsteinian.

In the quotation below Banesh Hoffmann clearly explains that, "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations" (as was the case in 1887), the Michelson-Morley experiment proves Newton's variable speed of light (c'=c±v) and disproves the constant (independent of the speed of the emitter) speed of light (c'=c) posited by the ether theory and adopted by Einstein:

Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "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. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-It.../dp/0486406768

Wikipedia: Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c ± v, explains the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment:

"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

John Norton: "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

Pentcho Valev