Stephen Speicher <sjs@speicher.com> wrote in message
 news:<Pine.LNX.4.33.0305141533100.1656-100000@localhost.localdomain>...
> On 14 May 2003, Marcel Luttgens wrote:
> 
> > There is no length contraction
> 
> You're confused. There is length contraction, but there is no
> Marcel Luttgens.

This is an addendum for the SR crackpots like you, Dirk Van de moortel, 
and most of the SRists, who are unable or unwilling to realize Einstein's 
logical mistake:

1) According to Einstein's own theory, the length l of the interferometer's 
   arm, which is parallel to the xx'-axis, corresponds, after a time 
   interval t, to x=ct when the interferometer is at rest "in the ether" 
   (Iow, when S' is at rest wrt S). Let's remember that x is the distance 
   travelled, after a time interval t measured in S, or S'(because S' is 
   at rest wrt S), by a light signal sent at t=t'=0.
   But when the interferometer moves at v wrt the ether (Iow, when S' moves
   at v wrt S),  x' = ct'. 
   Otoh, the length l of the arm, which is parallel to the yy'-axis, is
   given by y=ct when the interferometer is at rest "in the ether".
   But when the interferometer moves at v wrt the ether (Iow, when S' 
   moves at v wrt S),  y' = ct'.
   The two paths x' and y' being equal, no fringe displacement can be 
   observed.
   And indeed, the MMX showed no fringe displacemment.