Analyses of derivations of Lorentz transformations

 - how they implicitly miss superluminal LT.

The rational and history for discovery of superluminal LT see abstract to Fifth International Conference on the Nature and Ontology of Spacetime  2018

See also Rindler's derivation.  1960  which shows a possible choice, even if he discard it.

With these as background its is clear that many derivations miss superluminal LT and it is possible

to search for the miss.

A detailed analysis 

[Pilotti, J. 'How Minkowski could  have discovered superluminal LT and six dimensional spacetime' in Reinoud Jan Slagter and Zoltan Keresztes (Editors), Spacetime 1909-2019. Selected peer-reviewed papers presented at the Second Hermann Minkowski Meeting on the Foundations of Spacetime Physics, 13-16 May 2019, Albena, Bulgaria, forthcoming 2020] 

shows two types of errors in derivations of LT, which at least shows the need of caution when thinking about the possibility of systems with v>c as not just ordinary systems going faster and faster.

A: Using argument from symmetry or even relativity postulate which are only valid for  subluminal velocities.

      That is using a faulty argument (Einstein [2], Born [7], Pauli [8], Landau and

     Lifshitz [9] and Rindler’s later works [10])

B: Not fully use of the mathematical possibilities:

      a. of negative φ(x,y,z,t) in ds'*ds'=φ (x,y,z,t)ds*ds (Cunningham [11] 
          Rindler 1960 [12] ) ,
      b. of two different formulas for “rotations” in non-Euclidean Minkowski space, 
          (Minkowski [3, dec 1907], Cunningham [11], Synge [13], Landau and
          Lifshitz[9]) ,
       c. or the seemingly obvious alternative in the graphic method (Minkowski [3,
           1908], Born [7]) thus perhaps more of a lapse.
References see abstract to Minkowski meeting 2019 on Sixdimensional relativity
On this homepage I will publish analysis of more derivations missing superluminal LT

I will appreciate to be mailed about other derivations, especially using other approaches and especially if it is not obvious how the choice is missed.