When Will Einstein's Idiocies End?

Dr Helen Klus: "In 1905, German-Swiss-American physicist Albert Einstein combined the idea that experiments performed at a constant speed will give the same results as experiments that are stationery, with the idea that the speed of light will remain constant from both perspectives. The first assumption is a result of Galileo's relativity. The second assumption comes from the Michelson-Morley experiment. [...] Galileo also showed that speeds and velocities are additive. This means that if someone runs at speed u' across the deck of a ship moving at speed v, then the speed measured by someone on the shore (u) would be u = v + u'. If a beam of light were to move across the ship at speed c, the person on the shore should measure the speed to be u = v + c. In the same way, a person on Earth should measure the speed of light to be u = v + c, where v is the velocity of the Earth, when they are moving towards the Sun. [...] In 1887, American physicists Albert Michelson and Edward Morley measured the speed of light from the Sun while the Earth was moving in two different directions and found no difference (although the velocity was different because you can tell when light is moving towards or away from you, this did not affect the light's speed). This was a completely unexpected result, and showed that speeds and velocities are not additive, as Galileo had thought." http://www.thestargarden.co.uk/Special-relativity.html

A typical Einsteinian zombie - she doesn't know what she is talking about - but she is a PhD and has published a book. And there are countless zombies like her - spreading Einstein's idiocies all over the world. Will this nightmare ever end?

Actually the Michelson-Morley experiment proved that the speed of light is additive, like the speed of ordinary projectiles:

Wikipedia: "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

The analysis of the above information unavoidably leads to the following conclusion:

In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirmed the variable speed of light posited by Newton's emission theory of light and refuted the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light posited by the ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his 1905 second postulate.

Banesh Hoffmann says essentially the same:

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

The whole truth about the Michelson-Morley experiment:

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