Dear Eckard
You: This would be the case if either Einstein's relativity or your neo-Lorentzian view were correct. If I recall correctly, the latter rejects Einstein synchronization as do I too. I am not familiar with the work by Tangherlini, Selleri, Christov, van Flandern, and other dissidents whose position seems to be close to yours.
I'm not sure to what theory you are referring when you say "neo-Lorentzian". SR does an excellent job as a prediction tool but is flawed in the sense of denying the existence of a privilege frame of reference which leads us to paradoxes. The people that you mention realized this flaw and sought for alternatives to relativity.
FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction is so natural because it derives from the recognition that rigid bodies do not exist. All material objects deform when they are subjected to forces. Following the fact that macroscopic bodies are made of strings of atoms and that the electric field of any charge in motion undergoes a deformation, one can easily conclude that a body must contract when it is accelerated from absolute rest. And to accelerate the body we need to apply a force. Time dilation is also natural. And this follows from the recognition that a clock is a material object that will suffer length contraction when in motion. Even an atom can be considered as a clock. Given this, its frequency is determined by the energy difference between two energy levels and the energy levels can be put in terms of the radii, this mean that if the radii of the orbits changes (because of length contraction) the energy will change and in turn the frequency in proportion to the Lorentz factor. Thus we have here a deep insight of time dilation.
When we judge the MMX from the perspective of the privilege frame, length contraction suffices, however when we judge the experiment from the perspective of the frame at rest with the interferometer, we have to consider, for the sake of consistency, time dilation as well. Therefore the experiment tests both aspects (in SR these effects are not dynamical ones but kinematical, because they are derived from the properties of space-time). This is also in reply to you comment: Admittedly, there seems to be neither evidence for length contraction nor against it. I am however reluctant to swallow the idea that was fabricated by FitzGerald and also by Lorentz as to explain Michelson's null result while rescuing the hypothesis of a light-carrying aether.
These words "fabricated" and "rescuing" suggest me that either you are not fully understanding the physics or you are not aware of it. Einstein also labelled Lorentz contraction as ad-hoc hypothesis. Fortunately, more recently, people are starting to understand the great insight of Lorentz and they are realizing that Einstein was fundamentally wrong.
If you are not satisfied with the above explanation I'd like to ask you: Don you acknowledge that these effects really occur? If not, I have to conclude, for consistency, that you do not acknowledge E=mc^2 and the other dynamical effects. And I'm urged to ask: do you have any other plausible explanation to the outcome of the MMX that doesn't invoke time dilation and length contraction? Actually, there are not many explanations, another option that comes to my mind is the so-called emission theories. But I have already studied it in great detailed in the past and the solution is not consistent. Do you have any other option in mind?
You: Please read my current essay including its endnotes as to find a perhaps new solution to the old enigma.
Thanks for the invitation, I'll read it asap. Please be patient, I have so many essays to read and a lot of work in my job, that I'm afraid it would take some time.
Best Regards
Israel
