Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

The Michelson Morley INDICATED that "the speed of light was constant" (aether free)...

You obviously don't grasp the pragmatists' point that "what you measure" cannot be philosophically distinguished "what actually is".

Operationalization is used to specifically refer to the scientific practice of operationally defining, where even the most basic concepts are defined through the operations by which we measure them. This comes from the philosophy of science book The Logic of Modern Physics (1927), by Percy Williams Bridgman, whose methodological position is called operationalism.

Einstein's disagreement with the operationalist approach was criticized by Bridgman[10] as follows: "Einstein did not carry over into his general relativity theory the lessons and insights he himself has taught us in his special theory."

In short, I feel that I have created a Frankenstein, which has certainly got away from me. I abhor the word operationalism or operationism, which seems to imply a dogma, or at least a thesis of some kind. The thing I have envisaged is too simple to be dignified by so pretentious a name.

When subjected to the scrutiny of professional philosophers, however, Bridgman's ideas were soon exposed as unsystematic and undeveloped, as he freely admitted himself. Moreover, it became evident that his ideas did not help logical positivists solve the key problems that they were struggling with. After the initial fascination, the standard positivist (and post-positivist) reaction to operationalism was disappointment, and operationalism was often seen as a failed philosophy that did not live up to its promises.

Nowhere was the positivist disappointment with Bridgman sharper than in considerations of operationalism as a theory of meaning....Consider the following statement, the last part of which I have already quoted:

Quote:

the concept of length involves as much as and nothing more than the set of operations by which length is determined. In general, we mean by any concept nothing more than a set of operations; the concept is synonymous with the corresponding set of operations. (Bridgman 1927, 5)

...The kind of absolute control on the meaning of scientific concepts that Bridgman wished for is not possible....Going further than that, many critics of operationalism have argued that not every good scientific concept needs to have an operational definition. If operationalism means demanding that every concept and every inferential step should have an immediate operational significance, it constitutes an overly restrictive empiricism.

Michelson Morley does not require that length and distance be determined by speed (which makes no sense) rather than speed being determined by distance and time. It certainly did not require the postulate that the speed of light actually IS constant in all inertial frames.

You are welcome to try and articulate an alternative theory...

Mansouri and Sexl spoke about the "remarkable result that a theory maintaining absolute simultaneity is equivalent to special relativity." They also noticed the similarity between this test theory and Lorentz ether theory of Hendrik Lorentz, Joseph Larmor and Henri Poincaré.

Read the thread, or do your own independent research , if you're not aware of these things.

Many aspects of Lorentz's theory were incorporated into special relativity (SR) with the works of Albert Einstein and Hermann Minkowski.
Today LET is often treated as some sort of "Lorentzian" or "neo-Lorentzian" interpretation of special relativity. The introduction of length contraction and time dilation for all phenomena in a "preferred" frame of reference, which plays the role of Lorentz's immobile aether, leads to the complete Lorentz transformation (see the Robertson–Mansouri–Sexl test theory as an example). Because the same mathematical formalism occurs in both, it is not possible to distinguish between LET and SR by experiment.

Von Daniken's biased search for "evidence of our alien ancestors

They're limited education

A typo is all you've got ?

"They're" for "their" is not a typo. It is an error, cause: ignorance.

Proof reading prevents that, but I am on line in the middle of the night and dont have time .

Distracted because you are masturbating?

Quote:

Distracted because you are masturbating?

No . Not everyone is a sex addict, but it does explain why you are in France . No doubt you couldnt get a sex partner anywhere else .