2017-02-16 22:18:51 UTC
Of the following two statements one is true, the other is false of course:
Statement 1: The speed of light varies with the speed of the light source.
Statement 2: The speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source.
A correct experiment will be compatible with the true statement and incompatible with the false one - otherwise the experiment is not correct.
In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Statement 1 and incompatible with Statement 2. It remained incompatible with Statement 2 for a few years - then Lorentz and FitzGerald fabricated, ad hoc, length contraction and other miracles and the experiment became compatible with Statement 2 and incompatible with statement 1.
Banesh Hoffmann confirms that, "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations", the Michelson-Morley experiment is compatible with Statement 1 and incompatible with Statement 2:
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."