Richard Feynman: "The principle of relativity was first stated by Newton, in one of his corollaries to the laws of motion: “The motions of bodies included in a given space are the same among themselves, whether that space is at rest or moves uniformly
forward in a straight line.” This means, for example, that if a space ship is drifting along at a uniform speed, all experiments performed in the space ship and all the phenomena in the space ship will appear the same as if the ship were not moving,
provided, of course, that one does not look outside...Suppose we are riding in a car that is going at a speed u, and light from the rear is going past the car with speed c...according to the Galilean transformation the apparent speed of the passing light,
as we measure it in the car, should not be c but should be c-u. For instance, if the car is going 100,000 mi/sec, and the light is going 186,000 mi/sec, then apparently the light going past the car should go 86,000 mi/sec. In any case, by measuring the
speed of the light going past the car (if the Galilean transformation is correct for light), one could determine the speed of the car. A number of experiments based on this general idea were performed to determine the velocity of the earth, but they all
failed - they gave no velocity at all. We shall discuss one of these experiments [the Michelson-Morley experiment] in detail..." https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html

Are the car experiment and the Michelson-Morley experiment "based on this general idea"? No, the two experiments have nothing to do with one another:

The Michelson-Morley experiment is entirely performed within the moving system, so the principle of relativity is relevant and an observer in this system CANNOT determine the speed of the system.

The car experiment is not entirely performed within the moving system (the light is emitted outside the system), so the principle of relativity is irrelevant and an observer in this system CAN determine the speed of the system.

In this lecture Feynman fraudulently teaches that the Galilean transformation for light contradicts the principle of relativity and is therefore incorrect. Needless to say, the author of the hoax was Einstein (Feynman just parrots him):

Albert Einstein: "If a ray of light be sent along the embankment, we see from the above that the tip of the ray will be transmitted with the velocity c relative to the embankment. Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again travelling along the
railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we
can here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative
to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w = c - v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into conflict with the
principle of relativity set forth in Section 5." http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

Einstein's relativity is not a science; it is an ideology:

"This paper investigates an alternative possibility: that the critics were right and that the success of Einstein's theory in overcoming them was due to its strengths as an ideology rather than as a science. The clock paradox illustrates how relativity
theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make the theory ideologically powerful. [...] The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are
disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then
able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier.
Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting
their opponents out of professional discourse. [...] The triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science." Peter Hayes, The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of
the Clock Paradox https://tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02691720902741399

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Einstein (later parroted by Feynman) used to teach that variable speed of light contradicts the principle of relativity, which entails that Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is a logical consequence of the principle of relativity:

Albert Einstein, On the Principle of Relativity: "After all, when a beam of light travels with a stated velocity relative to one observer, then - so it seems - a second observer who is himself traveling in the direction of the propagation of the light
beam should find the light beam propagating at a lesser velocity than the first observer does. If this were really true, then the law of light propagation in vacuum would not be the same for two observers who are in relative, uniform motion to each other
- in contradiction to the principle of relativity stated above." https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-trans/16

Note that, since the principle of relativity is true, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate could not be false if it were really a logical consequence (it is not of course).

Needless to say, today's Einsteinians diligently teach Einstein's fraudulent argument:

Dave Slaven: "Einstein's first postulate seems perfectly reasonable. And his second postulate follows very reasonably from his first. How strange that the consequences will seem so unreasonable." http://webs.morningside.edu/slaven/Physics/relativity/
relativity3.html

Lubos Motl: "The second postulate of special relativity morally follows from the first one once you promote the value of the speed of light to a law of physics which is what Einstein did. In classical Newtonian mechanics, it was not a law of physics."
http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/12/lorentz-violation-and-deformed-special.html

Professor Raymond Flood: "A consequence of Einstein's principle of relativity is that the speed of light in vacuum has the same value in two uniformly moving frames of reference." https://youtu.be/IjRSYv7u3T4?t=304

Chad Orzel: "The core idea of Einstein's theory of relativity can fit on a bumper sticker: The Laws Of Physics Do Not Depend On How You're Moving. Absolutely everything else follows from the simple realization that physics must appear exactly the same to
person in motion as to a person at rest - the constant speed of light, the slowing of time for moving observers, E=mc2, black holes, even the expanding universe (I've written a whole book about this, explained through imaginary conversations with my dog).
" http://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2015/05/29/four-reasons-to-not-fear-physics/

Michael Fowler: "Therefore, demanding that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames implies that the speed of any light wave, measured in any inertial frame, must be 186,300 miles per second. This then is the entire content of the Theory
of Special Relativity: the Laws of Physics are the same in any inertial frame, and, in particular, any measurement of the speed of light in any inertial frame will always give 186,300 miles per second." http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109/
lectures/spec_rel.html

Leonard Susskind: "The principle of relativity is that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame. That principle existed before Einstein. Einstein added one law of physics - the law of physics is that the speed of light is the speed of
light, c. If you combine the two things together - that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame, and that it's a law of physics that light moves with certain velocity, you come to the conclusion that light must move with the same
velocity in every reference frame. Why? Because the principle of relativity says that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame, and Einstein announced that it is a law of physics that light moves with a certain velocity." https://youtu.
be/toGH5BdgRZ4?t=626

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)