http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Development_of_Our_Views_on_the_Composition_and_Essence_of_Radiation Albert Einstein: "A satisfying theory can only be reached if we dispense with the ether hypothesis. Then the electromagnetic fields that make up light no longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather as independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in Newton's emission theory of light. As in that theory, space that is free of matter and radiation is truly empty. Superficial consideration suggests that the essential parts of Lorentz's theory cannot be reconciled with the relativity principle. According to Lorentz's theory, if a light beam propagates through space, it does so with a speed c in the resting frame K of the ether, independently of the state of motion of the emitting object. Let's call this the constancy of the speed of light principle. The theorem of the addition of speeds states that the same light beam will not propagate at speed c in a different frame K' moving uniformly relative to the ether. The laws of propagation thus seem to be different in the two frames and, hence, the relativity principle seems to be incompatible with the laws governing light's propagation."
If "a satisfying theory can only be reached if we dispense with the ether hypothesis", why should the ether theory's tenet that the speed of light is independent of the state of motion of the emitting object be reconciled with the relativity principle? Moreover, if "the electromagnetic fields that make up light no longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather as independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in Newton's emission theory of light", then the speed of light does depend on the state of motion of the emitting object, a prediction of the emission theory unequivocally confirmed by the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887:
http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC "Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? 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."
There was only one reason why Einstein "reconciled" the ether theory's tenet that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter and the relativity principle: they had already been reconciled in the Lorentz transforms and the plagiarist had no other choice.