Deriving the LT from experimental laws ONLY

On 26 Aug, 17:46, Tom Roberts wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
Peter Christensen wrote:
We start with, what we know from experiments:
[...]
[and some definitions:]
E = gamma(v)*m*c^2
p = gamma(v)*m*v
where gamma(v) = 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)

Most would say your definitions here include SR, so what's the point?
Certainly that is not the way Newtonian mechanics defines these quantities.

But the Lorentz transforms of SR can indeed be obtained to high accuracy
from experiments. The basic approach is to write down the most general
possible coordinate transforms, and to then use experimental
measurements to put constraints on the transforms. Three experiments,
Michelson-Morley, Kennedy-Thorndike, and Ives-Stilwell, are sufficient
to constrain all parameters of such transforms to better than 1 part per
million. See:
Zhang, _Special_Relativity_and_its_Experimental_Foundatio ns_.

Tom Roberts

Roberts Roberts now you should demonstrate the power of your logic.
According to an Einsteinian much cleverer than you, the Michelson-
Morley experiment alone confirms Newtonian mechanics, not special
relativity:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

You should only show how Kennedy-Thorndike and Ives-Stilwell reverse
the situation - given their conclusions the Michelson-Morley
experiment should become incompatible with the emission theory and
compatible with Einstein's light postulate. Roberts Roberts can you do
this immediately or do you need a long thinking period?

Pentcho Valev