Dear Eckard
Just to let you know that I have read your well structured and written essay. You raised several interesting issues such as those mentioned above by Edwin. My major motivation in reading your essay was to verify your claim that you have an alternative explanation to the MMX. I read also the endnotes. There I could find some of the comments that you already posted in my entry. As I mentioned in my entry, Lorentz' contraction is not an artifice but it's well justified if one recognizes that bodies are not rigid entities but deform under the action of a force.
You:The velocity of light c equals to the distance d between the position of emitter at the moment of emission and the position of receiver at the moment of detection divided by the time of flight t: c=d/t.
Here, of course, we have to determine the time at the emission and receiving points. In doing so, this will inevitably lead us to the problem of clock synchronization (that you mention in endnote 4), which from my point of view is a dead end given the circular reasoning that emerges when we try to synchronize a clock by determining the one-way speed of light which in turn requires a clock synchronization procedure. The synchronization by slow motion has been extensively studied in the literature and I would not like to discuss it here. I remember that we have already discussed at length this topic.
With respect to endnote 1, I couldn't get what you really mean. It seems that you are suggesting absolute time and denying local times. You suggest negative values for t, which I don't get the physical meaning of negative time. Could you comment on this part please.
Best Regards
Israel