@stack
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I may have been in a foul mood when I was a little harsh with the "reading comprehension bit". My apologies.
Interesting. You simply say, "Wrong,
I do it to save time. It is common knowledge, after all - and should hardly be surprising to you. The "mmx" (j*sus tap dancing chr*st) was not performed to measure distance. This is historical fact, and I am still waiting on you to provide support for your revisionist claim - assuming you have one. I've read your entry level article - it does not serve to rewrite history in the manner you require. If you don't have any support for your claim in historical/scientific text, then why are you so certain about it?
I find it perfectly conceivable that your claim could have some merit, though you have provided no evidence for it so far. It is widely taught and known that the "mmx" measures velocity (or acceleration, depending on if you were taught correctly or not), not distance. Great pains were taken to eliminate the noise caused by the "distance" the interferometer would change shape due to vibration. It is still used today for that same purpose and that is its most common use.
And I have no idea what you are getting at.
That's fair - i did not explain. An experiment is not merely an observation. You must have at least one IV and DV and it must validate or invalidate the hypothesis by establishing a causal link between the two - it is not optional. The michaelson morely "experiment" is merely an observation - not an experiment. It may seem like a semantic quibble, but it is far more important than that.
What sort of evidence do you have that refutes the evidence I have offered
Roughly all of it. You are the only one who seems to have been taught the new history that michaelson morely invented the interferometer to measure distance first, and THEN used it to determine motion through space in the "mmx" (shudder...). I find this view interesting, and potentially plausible - but it has no historical support. Unless you have some?