Did Lorentz or Einstein theoretically derive special relativity?

[atyy]

Atyy,

Thanx for the fine reference. I'm looking thru it. BTW, in an attempt to put it in a nutshell:

would you agree that any derivation (no matter what the foundation) that ...

(1) allows for contractions given invariant light in at least 1 frame, and
(2) requires all POVs to agree with the proper frame of the lightclock ...​

must end up Lorentz covariant and uphold the PoR?

GrayGhost

I don't understand what invariant light in 1 frame is, nor what a proper frame is (they're both probably right, but I don't know the jargon). But yes, any correct derivation must end up Lorentz covariant and uphold the principle of relativity.

 

[GrayGhost]

I don't understand what invariant light in 1 frame is, nor what a proper frame is (they're both probably right, but I don't know the jargon). But yes, any correct derivation must end up Lorentz covariant and uphold the principle of relativity.

Yes, I do of course recognize that any derivation "that does not result in the LTs" cannot be correct, because it cannot uphold the PoR (nor be Lorentz covariant).

Wrt "invariant light in 1 frame", by 1 frame I mean "the aether frame" per LET, and "any arbitrary frame" per SR. Basically, the starting frame for the LT derivation. By "proper frame of the lightclock", I suppose I could have just left that out and said "the light clock's frame" ... which of course deems itself stationary with the photon bouncing back-and-forth, while it moves thru the starting frame.

Requirement ... the starting frame cannot disagree as to whether (sync'ed) clocks and rulers attached to the reflectors of the lightclock recorded what they did. And said rulers and clocks do their thing no matter if observers of other frames are around to witness it or not, so the ray bounces back and forth per the lightclock POV just as in classical mechanics.

Just for cut-to-the-chase sake ... it seems to me that it's this requirement "in conjunction with the invariant light speed of the starting frame" that forces the LTs to always result as they do ... even though the foundations differ. IOWs, it can end up no other way unless you make a mathematical error in derivarion. no?

GrayGhost

 

[atyy]

Yes, I do of course recognize that any derivation "that does not result in the LTs" cannot be correct, because it cannot uphold the PoR (nor be Lorentz covariant).

Wrt "invariant light in 1 frame", by 1 frame I mean "the aether frame" per LET, and "any arbitrary frame" per SR. Basically, the starting frame for the LT derivation. By "proper frame of the lightclock", I suppose I could have just left that out and said "the light clock's frame" ... which of course deems itself stationary with the photon bouncing back-and-forth, while it moves thru the starting frame.

Requirement ... the starting frame cannot disagree as to whether (sync'ed) clocks and rulers attached to the reflectors of the lightclock recorded what they did. And said rulers and clocks do their thing no matter if observers of other frames are around to witness it or not, so the ray bounces back and forth per the lightclock POV just as in classical mechanics.

Just for cut-to-the-chase sake ... it seems to me that it's this requirement "in conjunction with the invariant light speed of the starting frame" that forces the LTs to always result as they do ... even though the foundations differ. IOWs, it can end up no other way unless you make a mathematical error in derivarion. no?

GrayGhost

The first requirement just seems to mean that we assume classical (not quantum) reality. I don't understand what "invariant light speed in the starting frame" means. (Sorry, you must have discussed this many pages ago while I wasn't paying attention).