Bill, the points which I am making a

1. Lorentz explained the null result of MMX as due to contraction of
the parallell arm.

2. AE agreed with Lorentz (refer AE quote below).

3. MMX is the starting point and foundation of SR. The contraction
formula is used by SR. If it falls, so does SR.

4. There is an unexplained redundency in the contraction conjectu Is
the MMX null result due to the nature of light (ie constancy) or is it
due to contraction? If c is a constant why is contraction necessary and
if contraction is real how can c be constant (ie must c not vary to
accommodate the contraction at different v)?

5. MMX only shows that light travels over both MMX arms using the same
time. The speed of light may very well be a constant but this is not
proven by MMX or required by it.


Albert Einstein: Relativity
(revised 1924 edition of Dec 1916 1st edition)
Part I: The Special Theory of Relativity
Chapter 11 The Lorentz Transformation (excerpt)

"Aided by the following illustration, we can readily see that, in
accordance with the Lorentz transformation, the law of the transmission
of light in vacuo is satisfied both for the reference-body K and for
the reference-body K1. A light-signal is sent along the positive
x-axis, and this light-stimulus advances in accordance with the
equation

x = ct,

i.e. with the velocity c. According to the equations of the Lorentz
transformation, this simple relation between x and t involves a
relation between x1 and t1. In point of fact, if we substitute for x
the value ct in the first and fourth equations of the Lorentz
transformation, we obtain:

x'=(c-v)t/sqrt(1-vv/cc) and t'=(1-v/c)t/sqrt(1-vv/cc)

from which, by division, the expression

x1 = ct1

immediately follows. If referred to the system K1, the propagation of
light takes place according to this equation. We thus see that the
velocity of transmission relative to the reference-body K1 is also
equal to c. The same result is obtained for rays of light advancing in
any other direction whatsoever. Of cause this is not surprising, since
the equations of the Lorentz transformation were derived conformably to
this point of view."

Peter Riedt