If I took my new tape measure and found that, compared to all the others I could find, it was indeed only 90 feet long, then I would accept that as the explanation for the reason that I routinely and regularly misgauged the length of football fields by a predictable amount when relying on it.
Just in case the analogy is not clear, let me summarize it this way: Since the validity of the LT predictions have been repeatedly verified, and since the hypothesis of clock retardation offers (on it's face, anyway) a plausible explanation for the fact that our actual measurements are not in accord with our expected measurements (in M-M types of experiments), I accept clock retardation as a plausible explanation for the fact that we don't detect the earth's motion, even though it "really is" moving.
A properly constructed football field "really is" 100 yards long, even if I don't measure it to be that.
Likewise, in the LR framework, light really does travel at different speeds, depending on direction, even if we don't measure it that way.
Put another way, the speed of light is not "really" constant as Einstein claims. It only appears to be (is measured to be) constant, that's all.
On an empirical level, every "test" we ever made which has been interpreted as "confirming" SR, also confirms Lorentz's view of what's "really happening."
That said, the reverse does not apply. Some of our tests can be interpreted as "confirming" the premises of LR, while disconfirming (falsifying) those of SR.
As I said before, we can never "prove" a fundamental scientific hypothesis. That's why I use the word "confirm" as opposed to "prove." But, as I'm sure you realize, we can falsify a hypothesis.
Edited by Moronium, 11 February 2019 - 08:57 AM.