I am unable to see how anyone can feel that they have done this subject justice without deeply considering clock synchronizations as an integrated part of any working model they accept, and I am just not seeing the integration in other people's thinking. As a mere deeply interested layman, I only get to read about the work of others, which is quite limiting. Nevertheless, the June 16, 2016 activity contained in this link interests me greatly, especially the way it ends, and seems directly relevant to this question:
Andrew Wutke · Thales Group
Thanks for the response to this old question. By now this question is
now an affirmative statement. The relative simultaneity does not
exist. Only relative synchroneity of clocks
I would encourage anyone who harbors doubts about the current prevailing wisdom of relative simultaneity (which is to say anyone who thinks kinetic energy is more than an idle observer of the dynamics of our existence) to read that entire post. While the details are beyond the scope of my own current concerns, the generalities of the conclusions agree with my own thoughts.
Furthermore, I found much of the high level notions presented in this earlier work quite compelling, and at odds with current prevailing wisdom: https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0606188.pdf
Finally, I present my own thoughts for consideration or otherwise for anyone that feels that something here just isn't quite right. Alas, I have no professional qualifications to support my thinking, just years of obsessive consideration and a deep intuitive sense that I see things as they are. I wrote this before finding the other two links previously posted, and maybe some day, after my knowledge grown deeper and my thoughts are more evolved, I'll write a more professional and technical piece: https://www.quora.com/The-muon-experiment-shows-that-scientists-record-time-as-moving-more-slowly-for-the-muons-than-for-the-scientists-Would-the-muons-think-that-time-had-passed-more-slowly-for-the-scientists/answer/Craig-Heile