Derivation of Lorentz Transformation

I really should stay out of this, since it is many decades since I studied the subject in school. However, it seems likely to me that absolute values were implicit in the description of what the transformation represented. I believe you are pulling a trick on us equivalent to the old change for $5 scam that has so often been played on naive store clerks. Shame on you, Thomas!

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by PhilJ</i>
<br />I really should stay out of this, since it is many decades since I studied the subject in school. However, it seems likely to me that absolute values were implicit in the description of what the transformation represented. I believe you are pulling a trick on us equivalent to the old change for $5 scam that has so often been played on naive store clerks. Shame on you, Thomas!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Yes, maybe you should stay out of this if you can't follow the simple maths here. The basic equations quoted are exactly those used at www.bartleby.com/173/a1.html for the derivation of the Lorentz transformation and I have not added or left out anything but merely drawn some conclusions regarding the mathematical consistency of those equations.

---

www.physicsmyths.org.uk
www.plasmaphysics.org.uk

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Many people maintain that the Lorentz transformation is derived mathematically consistently and that there is therefore no way to challenge <b>SR</b> on internal consistency issues.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You meant, I think, <b>LR</b> ?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">(1) x-ct=0
...
In the same way, the propagation of a signal in the opposite direction yields
(3) x+ct=0
...
Let's subtract equation (1) from (3<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">But...these are not the same x! One is the position of the photon going forward, the other is the position of the OTHER photon which is going backward.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rodschmidt</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Many people maintain that the Lorentz transformation is derived mathematically consistently and that there is therefore no way to challenge <b>SR</b> on internal consistency issues.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You meant, I think, <b>LR</b> ?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
No I meant SR (the derivation at www.bartleby.com/173/a1.html is actually by Einstein himself (from his book 'Relativity: The Special and General Theory')).

---

www.physicsmyths.org.uk
www.plasmaphysics.org.uk

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rodschmidt</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">(1) x-ct=0
...
In the same way, the propagation of a signal in the opposite direction yields
(3) x+ct=0
...
Let's subtract equation (1) from (3<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">But...these are not the same x! One is the position of the photon going forward, the other is the position of the OTHER photon which is going backward.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Yes, that's exactly the point of Einstein's derivation. Otherwise it would not 'work'.

---

www.physicsmyths.org.uk
www.plasmaphysics.org.uk