Appendix 1 - simple Lorentz transformation derivation found at - http://www.bartleby.com/173/a1.html(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Given in equation (3)

(x'-ct') = Y(x-ct) [Y = const.]

by rearrangement, it yields,

(x'-ct')/(x-ct) = Y.

But it is stated that both (x-ct) and (x'-ct') are zero, so we have "zero over zero" - a mathematical no-no.

There is surely no way something so trivial could of been over-looked when proof-reading, so I ask where it is I am going wrong in this derivation? Also, is it such the case when considering the 3D model?

Many thanks.

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Simple Derivation (1D) Lorentz Transformation

Loading...

Similar Threads for Simple Derivation Lorentz |
---|

I Example of use of the Lie Derivative in Relativity |

I Lie and Covariant derivatives |

I Modeling a simple N-body in a hypothetical relativistic dark flow |

I Simple Velocity Relativity Problem |

I Relativistic mass increase (simple or not) |

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**