>I have no idea what you mean by a 'consistent conceptualization' of Lorentz contraction, but length contraction was a completely ad hoc explanation for the Mic

>I have no idea what you mean by a 'consistent conceptualization' of Lorentz contraction, but length contraction was a completely ad hoc explanation for the Michelson Morley experiment. It's correctness was/is more incidental than anything else. Einstein did not cite Lorentz (or anybody for that matter), and I do not think that was unfair or egotistical of him. In "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"[1] Einstein checks his derivation against Lorentz contraction. It's on page 20 of the referenced English translation. Lorentz' model was ad hoc, E derived it with only 2 postulates (equivalence principle; c invariance). Lorentz was indeed cited, and the cite is useful to connect E's theory to real-world observation. This is true whether or not you want to get pedantic about the meaning of "cite" vs "reference". 1 - https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf Originally "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Koerper"