We cannot hope to directly unite complex belief systems, as David de H said. However, we can, and must, try to unite basic assumptions and important empirical facts. A dubious assumption is the idea that a phenomenon can move with the same speed in relation to all inertial frames. An important empirical fact is the 300 year old observation of stellar aberration. According to Ron Hatch, and many others, this effect is caused by a wave front bending due to the ether wind. However, according to myself, Prof Hartwig Thim and David Tombe this effect is instead caused by the changes in the state of motion of the observer. I regard this difference of opinion as very, very important.
The great mistake
The important mistake regarding propagation of light is not observing the difference between the real motion of light (a vector sum, observable only in focused light), and apparent motion of light (independent of transverse ether wind, observable by phase in most experiments). Therefore, we need two models for propagation of light. A telescope detects wave fronts based on phase and apparent motion is relevant, and therefore, transverse ether wind v is irrelevant. See Fig. 1 in the attachment. Aberration is independent of v.
Stellar aberration is instead an illusion, since the observer has forgotten to compensate for changes in his own state of motion, u in transverse direction to light. Bradley’s explanation based on the rain drop effect is relevant. See Fig. 3 in the attachment (from a recent book). If observer data are transformed to the frame of our sun aberration disappears. Stellar aberration (and pulsar aberration) are caused by an apparent bending, instead.
This great mistake means, that in reality, there is no effect in transverse arm in MMX, and no effect of ether wind in Einstein’s light clock either. I have described this earlier in an article called Abolishing the Lorentz Factor. In that article it was demonstrated that the effect in longitudinal arm in MMX is the Lorentz factor squared, and this effect is compensated by length contraction, without the need for dilation of time. So, we must give up the Lorentz factor.
See also my latest contribution to GSJournal, about stellar aberration.
A serious problem
It is very important that we lack agreement about a 300 year old observation. I therefore hope for many comments on this post.