So to measure light speed+earth speed we would need somehow measure that speed from that is at rest in relation to earth, but that frame dont exist in universe..

You appear to have in mind a ballistic model where light is a series of little bullets launched by the source. In this case its speed would be fixed relative to the Earth and Michelson and Morley would also return a null result. However, it's ruled out by astronomical observations. If you observe a binary star, light coming from the component coming towards us would be slightly faster than light coming from the component moving away from us, which would cause them to appear to spend more time moving away than moving towards us. This is not observed, so the ballistic model is wrong.

Light was, at the time, believed to be a wave travelling in a medium called the ether. Its speed would always be ##c## relative to the medium, and would vary relative to Earth as Earth moved through the medium in different directions. This is exactly how other waves in media, such as sound waves, behave. Their speed is fixed relative to the medium but not the source.

You appear to have in mind a ballistic model where light is a series of little bullets launched by the source. In this case its speed would be fixed relative to the Earth and Michelson and Morley would also return a null result. However, it's ruled out by astronomical observations. If you observe a binary star, light coming from the component coming towards us would be slightly faster than light coming from the component moving away from us, which would cause them to appear to spend more time moving away than moving towards us. This is not observed, so the ballistic model is wrong.

If they assumed that ether is static, how they now in which direction is earth velocity if earth moves around itself, sun, milky way, other galaxyies, universes etc etc? What if all vectors of all this velocities sum up to zero? Highly unlikely but mathematically possible?

If light speed is not depend on source speed, my logic is because it is massless so source speed can not add "additional energy" to photons. Is that correct?

Photons are entities in relativistic quantum field theory and they do not behave very much like a naive idea of a particle at all. Our general advice is that it is a mistake to try to understand light behaviour in terms of photons until you can study what they actually are. There are times when fudging it with "light is made of particles" will kiind of work (Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect is an example) but many times when it won't. Think of light as a wave until you have a solid grasp of special relativity and non-relativistic quantum mechanics. Then you can start learning relativistic quantum mechanics and studying photons.

Is this relative time ,space just math abstraction that somehow produce correct results or reality?
Does theory need to fit reality or only need to fit measurments results?

Why Tesla didnt accept relative time,space ?

What we do is try to find the theory with the fewest and simplest assumptions that correctly calculates the outcomes of experiments we have done. Then we use it to predict the results of experiments we haven't done. And we use other theories and see what they predict and find experiments where they predict different things and try to do those experiments to eliminate at least one theory. Our fundamental problem at the moment is that, although we strongly suspect our theories aren't completely correct, we haven't managed to find a regime where we can do experiments and in which the theories make measurably incorrect predictions. So we have a lot of very strong constraints on any new theory and very little leverage to test which one is correct.

It isn't that nobody is thinking about this. It's that it is really, really hard to come up with a new theory that is both well enough fleshed out to make predictions and isn't immediately falsified by existing data.

That's why they repeated the experiment multiple times over the course of a year. We could have a zero velocity relative to a static ether at one instant, but not throughout the year.

No. Light coming from a source approaching you will have higher energy than light from an identical source moving away from you. This is one interpretation of kinematic red and blue shifts. Light from both sources will have the same speed, however.

Photons are entities in relativistic quantum field theory and they do not behave very much like a naive idea of a particle at all. Our general advice is that it is a mistake to try to understand light behaviour in terms of photons until you can study what they actually are. There are times when fudging it with "light is made of particles" will kiind of work (Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect is an example) but many times when it won't. Think of light as a wave until you have a solid grasp of special relativity and non-relativistic quantum mechanics. Then you can start learning relativistic quantum mechanics and studying photons.

For me space is nothing, so nothing cant be curved, twisted etc etc, so I look this theory as physically incorrect, mathematical abstraction, but that doesn't matter if get correct results( excluding micro world and large scale).

I think we still don't know how gravity really works, because we have problems in micro world and large scales.

How do you know that a theory is physically incorrect?

Are there? If so, please identify one and explain how we know that it is physically incorrect.