> Just read what he wrote and read what I wrote. You ask questions,
> you get incedribly precise answers and then you call them "digressions".
> That shows that you are not interested and/or not intelligent enough
> to understand the answers. But we know that since many years.
>
> Dirk Vdm

You have shown that the negative result of the MMX can be explained
by time slowing *or* by length contraction.

Otoh, your ad hominem derogatory comments simply aimed at avoiding
answering my question:

"How can the null result be explained by time "dilation" *and*
by length contraction?".

Clearly, time slowing alone equalizes the light paths, thus preventing
a displacement of the fringes. And time slowing is a proven phenomenon.

Only a SR crackpot could claim that a further alteration of the paths
by length contraction would maintain the MMX null result.

SR crackpots will never recognize that length contraction is the mere
product of Einstein's bogus assumption that light speed is independent
of the motion of the observer.

Marcel Luttgens