Yes, I mean an experiment whose significance is agreed by all except a small minority of scientists, whose work you nevertheless feel should be elevated to a higher standard of significance than it possesses merely because it is a minority view, and for some reason you want to experience the feeling of superiority resulting from the belief that the rest of the world is wrong and you are right. Of course, as everyone reading this thread knows, you are not trumpeting Cahill's work because of any capacity on your part to understand it - you've demonstrated your inability to grasp the simplest relevant concepts many times over - but because it agrees with your prejudices.
Now, I see that Cahill's entire analysis stems from the following statement:
This is, as far as I can see, an irrelevant comment. If we start from the postulate that there is no such thing as absolute motion, we therefore arrive very simply at the conclusion that the Michelson-Morley experiment gives a null result whatever the medium in which it is performed, provided only that there is no motion of the dielectric medium relative to the apparatus. The Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction is then derived as a consequence of this observation, rather than being treated in isolation as an anomalous effect. Since this incorrect claim - that the Michelson-Morley experiment should not have yielded a null result - is the foundation of Cahill's further calculations, there is no need to give them any consideration beyond this point. No doubt this was equally obvious to the peer reviewers who rejected this work for publication in Nature.
Dave
] -- 
I found: