SR fundamental contradiction
------------------------------------------

Luttgens:

Let x = ct.
Then x' = g(x - vt), where gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), becomes
x' = g(c-v)t
What represents the length (c-v)t?
Is that length "dilated" by g?

Van de Moortel:

Consider the event E on the light signal with x = c t for some
chosen value of t.
Then c t - v t is the distance between the origin of S' (the 'moving
observer') and the light signal, as seen at time t in the S-frame
(the 'stationary frame'), and, by the way, so c - v is by definition
the closing velocity between the two.

For this event E, as seen in S', the light signal has covered the
distance
         x' = c t' = g (c - v) t
This is a distance of the event E in the S' frame.

Now imagine a stick with this particular length
         x' = g (c-v) t
at rest in the S' frame.
What is the length of such a stick in the S-frame?
If you apply length contraction, you find that this length
would be
        x' / g = (c - v) t
in the S frame.

Luttgens:

Any object (stick) measures shorter in terms of a frame relative to
which it is moving with velocity v that it does as measured in a frame
relative to which it is at rest, the ratio of shortening being
sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
This is a relation between measurements referred to different frames.

If a stick of length x' = g(c-v)t is at rest in the S' frame,
it is moving at v relative to the frame S. So, measured in S, its
length is contracted by 1/g and becomes x = g(c-v)t * 1/g = (c-v)t.
This corresponds to Van de Moortel's reasoning, which is circular.
Indeed, x' = g(c-v)t has been obtained *by applying the LT* to
x = (c-v)t, when S' was considered as moving relative to S, and thus
relative to the stick. No wonder that one gets back  x = (c-v)t
when S is afterwards considered as moving wrt S'.

One has instead to consider a stick of length x = (c-v)t at rest
in the frame S. Relative to the frame S', such stick is moving
at v, hence its length, measured in S', is shortened by 1/g wrt its
length measured in S. Thus, x' = (c-v)t / g.

But *according to the LT*, x' = (c-v)t * g !

Such contradiction demonstrates the falseness of the Lorentz
transformation, falseness whose origin lies in the postulate
that when x = ct, x' = ct'.

 See also

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/cb131236ebdfee50

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dc18e28a14352138