Dale
Mentor
- 36,529
- 15,306
That is minimizing the assumptions. If an assumption is not needed then you can discard it and use fewer assumptions.Saw said:I never said that I want to minimize the assumptions!!!! I just said that I want to have a clear idea about which are needed and which are not
If a reader must wade through 110 posts to get a statement of purpose from the OP then the object of the thread is not clear. I am not questioning your good faith, but the outcome of this thread is a mess. The title and your OP are not focused on the interval but also on the Lorentz transform. The derivation you were first focused on was a derivation of the Lorentz transform. So in your mind you may now be certain of what you want, but that doesn’t make it true “that the object is clear” to the rest of us.Saw said:Please stop questioning what the object of the OP is, It is what Ibix said in his post 108 and I confirmed in post 110 … Yet the truth is that the object is clear
You can derive the spacetime interval by first deriving the Lorentz transform and second showing that the form of the interval is invariant under the Lorentz transform. That is a perfectly legitimate derivation. You have rejected this legitimate approach. So, yes, it is difficult for me to understand.Saw said:deriving the ST interval (full stop, not LT) and, yes, of course, being clear on how (on the basis of which assumption this has been done). Is that so difficult to understand?