Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / July 2006

Don't miss her conclusions:

"10. Conclusions

Main goal of Special Relativity seems to be demonstrating that, from
its starting two postulates only, it is possible to derive the same
transformations by Lorentz. Our analysis instead proves that this
derivation is not possible, and that Einstein obtains it only thanks to
an ambiguous use of symbols, together with redundant algebraic
operations. Therefore, Lorentz transformations turn out to be
conceptually incompatible with SRT principles, and can be
considered valid only in the ambit of the LET (Lorentz ether theory),
in which they describe real alterations of lengths and light velocity
due to the motion through the ether. Moreover, since the SRT
founding postulate of the c constancy contradicts causal logic, as
shown in paragraph 6, the SRT physical model itself turns out to be
inconsistent, too.
<...>
Our short critical analysis of SRT main experimental proofs shows
that most of them contain tautological processes or/and arbitrary
handling of parameters, like Rossi-Hall and Hafele-Keating ones, and
that those consisting of real and non-reciprocal clock rate alterations
(SRT effects must instead be apparent and reciprocal), or/and
calculated relative to an ideal not rotating Earth -ECI frame (SRT
motion must instead be relative to the observer), which in fact prove
an ether model and not SRT.
Moreover, if objectively judged, all tests on light anisotropy,
Sagnac evidence included, clearly prove an ether model. As to the
proper meaning to attach to all the observed real clock rate
alterations,
our discussion shows that, provided they are not due to clock rate
random deviations, they cannot in principle be considered as real
changes in the flowing of time."

Marcel Luttgens

She demonstrates a deep confusion from the very beginning.
She doesn't even know what a co-ordinate transform is!
Or worse. She doesn't seem to know what co-ordinates are!

Look at this:
Quote from:
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V13NO3PDF/V13N3RUS.pdf
<<
  From the fact that SRT alterations are apparent and subjective, it
  follows that, differently from the Lorentz’s model context, in order to
  unambiguously describe two systems moving relative to one another,
  in SRT, four kinds of symbols are in principle necessary, corresponding
  to the four possible points of view predicted by the SRT model:
  k seen by k, K seen by K, K seen by k and k seen by K.

The "symbols" in question are the co-ordinates of an event.
An event has but one set of co-ordinates in each frame of reference.
There are two frames of reference : k and K.
So how can you have _four_ sets of co-ordinates?
If an event has the co-ordinates (x,y,z,t) in K,
it doesn't matter if you see it from k or K.
The idea that the coordinates of an event in a frame of reference
depend on from where you "see it" reveals a deep confusion.

And she goes on:
<<
Contradicting the requirement exposed at the end of the previous
 paragraph, both in the SRT first exposition and subsequent ones, in
 order to describe two systems moving “relative” to one another,
 Einstein uses two kinds of symbols only. Particularly, in the 1905
 article, xi, mu, zeta, tau represent the "proper" coordinates of a point
 in the system assumed "at motion" k, and x, y, z, t represent the "improper"
 (apparent) coordinates of the same point, if viewed from the assumed
 "at rest" system K.

What is "apparent" or "improper" by the coordinates in K as opposed
to the coordinates in k?
This is confused nonsense.

So is the rest of the paper.

Paul