THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY ENTAILS VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorze...ut-relativity/
Chad Orzel: "...all of relativity flows from a single, simple idea that could easily fit on a bumper sticker: "The Laws Of Physics Do Not Depend On How You're Moving." Once you have that, all the weird stuff you may have heard about - clocks running slow, E = mc^2, the bending of light by gravity - follows as a direct logical consequence of that principle. (...) The famous Michelson-Morley experiment attempted to measure a change in the speed of light depending on the Earth's motion around the Sun, but failed to find any change. Einstein's relativity explains this through the principle of relativity: the laws of physics do not depend on how you're moving, and the laws of physics include Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism. Which means that the speed of light must be exactly the same, no matter how you're moving."

Not even wrong. The following text by Banesh Hoffmann suggests the correct logic:

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? 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."

The following arguments are both valid:

Argument 1:

Premise 1: The null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment is a fact.

Premise 2: The principle of relativity is correct.

Premise 3: There is no length contraction (unlimitedly long objects cannot be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers).

Conclusion of Argument 1: The speed of light (relative to the observer) depends on the speed of the light source, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light.

Argument 2:

Premise 1: The null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment is a fact.

Premise 2: The principle of relativity is correct.

Premise 3: There is length contraction (unlimitedly long objects can be trapped inside unlimitedly short containers).

Conclusion of Argument 2: The speed of light (relative to the observer) is independent of the speed of the light source, as predicted by the ether theory and postulated in Einstein's special relativity.

Here is how Einsteinians trap unlimitedly long objects inside unlimitedly short containers:

http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relat...arage_irf1.png

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQHPAeiiQ3w
"How fast does a 7 m long buick need to go to fit in a 2 m deep closet?"

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."

http://www.quebecscience.qc.ca/Revolutions
Stéphane Durand: "Ainsi, une fusée de 100 m passant à toute vitesse dans un tunnel de 60 m pourrait être entièrement contenue dans ce tunnel pendant une fraction de seconde, durant laquelle il serait possible de fermer des portes aux deux bouts! La fusée est donc réellement plus courte. Pourtant, il n'y a PAS DE COMPRESSION matérielle ou physique de l'engin."

Pentcho Valev

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnzLpyDsn3M
Like almost all brothers Einsteinians, Edward Witten is unable to safely introduce Einstein's special relativity without recourse to a fundamental lie: he teaches that ( 1:17 ) the Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed the constant (independent of the speed of the source) speed of light predicted by the ether theory, and refuted the variable (dependent on the speed of the source) speed predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. Actually, in 1887 (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis), the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally confirmed the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and refuted the constancy entailed by the ether theory and chosen by Einstein as his special relativity's second postulate:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...nion_final.pdf
"These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation, has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late 19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised the greatest theoretician of the day."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
"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://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? 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." x

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8169.html
Richard Feynman, "QED: The strange theory of light and matter", p. 15: "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles. You might say that it's just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles."

Pentcho Valev