http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module3_M&M.htm "The Michelson Morley experiment is not consistent with Galilean/Newtonian relativity... (...) Following Galilean/Newtonian physics, let us suppose that light travels (at c) with respect to a 'stationary' medium (called the aether). (...) Substituting in the equations above (...) the phase difference expected would be (...) 0.4 fringes. The spectrometer was easily sensitive enough to see this*. However, the result was: 0.00 plus or minus 0.01 fringes."
The statement introducing the initial assumption about the speed of light is a blatant lie. The correct statement would have been:
"Following Maxwell's 19th century electromagnetic theory, let us suppose that light travels (at c) with respect to a 'stationary' medium (called the aether)."
In "Galilean/Newtonian physics" the speed of light varies with v, the speed of the emitter relative to the observer, in accordance with the equation c'=c+v. Assuming this and then making the same calculations as in the reference above, one obtains not 0.4 fringes (a prediction based on Maxwell's theory) but, rather, 0.00 fringes. That is, in 1887, prior to introducing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis, the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally confirmed the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and refuted the constant (independent of the speed of the emitter) speed of light predicted by Maxwell's theory:
http://www.philoscience.unibe.ch/documents/kursarchiv/SS07/Norton.pdf John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation, has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late 19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised the greatest theoretician of the day."
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."