The speed of light is c + v, where v is the speed of the broadcasting device, as tested and confirmed directly in laboratory experiment.
Yet you cannot provide an example of that.
What you try to use as an example, actually shows you are wrong.
For example, for a simple sagnac effect interferometer, do you know the reference frame where the speed of light is not c?
The rotating (non-inertial) reference frame, where your BS says it should be c.
You are appealing to the ballistic model of light.
With the ballistic model of light, the Sagnac effect should be 0.
The observers outside the ring in an inertial reference, watching it rotate, should see the speed of light travelling in the direction of rotation as c+v, while it propagating in the other direction should be c-v.
To those observers in the ring, the source/detector is stationary so they should see light travel at c.
Either way, the light travelling in both directions should take the same amount of time and reach the detector at the same time and not produce any shift.
Instead, the opposite occurs, where those in the inertial reference frame see light travel at c, and those in the non-inertial reference frame see different speeds, with the beam travelling in the direction of rotation travelling slower.
This results in the beam travelling in the direction of rotation taking longer to reach the detector, resulting in a fringe shift.
i.e. the experiment you have tried to appeal to to claim that relativity is broken, actually shows the ballistic model is broken.
Logically, it makes sense that if you throw a rock at a bystander from a moving car, the rock will hit the bystander at the speed of the rock + the moving car. You will need to do a lot of convincing with a lot of evidence to make me believe that it is possible for the rock to hit the bystander at a specific speed regardless of the additional movement of the car.
No, that isn't logic.
There is no prior principles from logic which dictate the speeds must sum.
Instead, that is taking something you observe in one set of conditions and assuming that must apply to all conditions and there is no error at all in your measurements.
As a simple counter example, considering dropping something and letting it fall.
If I do this from a height of 1 m, it hits the ground going at a speed of v.
What should happen if I instead throw it at a speed of u towards the ground? Should it hit the ground at a speed of u+v?
What if I throw it up instead of down?
What if I drop it at a height of 2 m? Should it hit the ground with a speed of 2v, or something else?
What about a height of 20 km?
Experiments show that it is not simple addition, and from a high enough point it reaches terminal velocity and additional height does not make it gain speed.
Your "logic" is no more logical than saying you should be able to make light travel faster.
Because if I get a baseball and hit it, it travels at some speed, but if I hit it harder it travels at a faster speed.
Why can't we do this with light?
The closest analogues we have to light would be things like water waves and sound waves.
That is because with a rock, like in your example, you can pick it up, stop it, move it around all over the place, and then throw it. It existed the entire time.
But with light, sound and water waves, they don't exist like that. You can't pick it up and move it around. It only exists once it is emitted.
And we can see with these waves that it doesn't matter how quickly an object is travelling, the waves travel at the same rate.
When a boat cruises through water, the waves in front don't speed up by the speed of the boat and the wave behind don't get slowed down (nor reverse direction).
Instead, we often see boats go faster than the waves the emit.
To go back to your car analogy, that would be like throwing a rock forwards yet it ending up going backwards.
This is what lead people to believe in an aether, with light propagating at a constant rate relative to that aether.
With that, you can't actually tell what is moving (and no, Airy's failure is a complete failure because you can't tell). It could be Earth or the aether.
This was complicated when stellar aberration demands Earth is moving relative to the aether, while the MM experiment shows it can't be.
A contradiction.
So far, the only explanation which has been able to explain stellar aberration, the MM experiment, and the Sagnac effect, is relativity.
The aether model and the ballistic model both fail. Either with a single experiment that shows it is wrong, or with multiple experiments with contradictory results.
Relativity basically just exists as science's denial that heliocentrism is wrong.
And another lie.
Relative exists because of contradictions between multiple experiments.
Even without appealing to HC, your BS is wrong.
Knowing that the true speed of light is c + v
You mean foolishly believing.
That is not knowing.
I am reminded of the work of François Arago.
Who made a false assumption, and had it shown to be wrong.
Like Michelson and Morley, Arago proved that the earth is not revolving around the Sun.
They did no such thing.
That is just your dishonest misinterpretation of the evidence.
Those colleges dont have any direct experiments showing that the speed of light is always c. They would interpret Arago's experiment as proof that the velocity of light never changes regardless of whether you are moving towards or away from the light source because they "know" that the earth is revolving around the sun and leave it at that.
i.e. because of experiments showing that.
In the first page of this thread, however, we saw that exists direct laboratory experimental evidence that the speed of light is c +/- v
No, we didn't.
We saw you baselessly claim that, and fail to justify it. Instead, in an attempt to pretend your position was sound, you cherry picked quotes from people you think are wrong, while ignoring the experiment and the explanations that that wasn't what the experiment showed.
the type of evidence that relativists don't have for their theory.
You mean the exact kind of evidence the "relativists" do have, which you continue to ignore.
We already know the truth here, directly, by experiment.
Yes, and that is that the speed of light, for an inertial reference frame, is c.
Even if you imagine that there is something magical limiting the speed of light to a certain maximal speed, how does that explain why in the second postulate the speed of light would still consistently measured to be c by the observer when the v is negative and the broadcasting body is moving away from them?
Because it isn't limiting it to a maximum speed, it is restricting it to a set speed.
This speed is dependent on the medium.
Just like sound waves.
You are going to need direct experimental evidence if you are going to believe something as wacky as what you believe.
No, we need experimental evidence. Which we have.
It doesn't necessarily need to be direct experimental evidence.
But we do, again, see the experiment YOU appealed to.