Codex @codex  0

One can derive a family containing the Lorentz transformations without assuming anything about light, but the Einstein's principle of relativity alone does not select that family member over the Galilean transformation. Extra assumptions must be stated: spatial and temporal translational symmetry, isotropy of SPACE, continuous transformations between equivalent inertial frames, reciprocity, and closure under composition. These are substantive restrictions, rather than consequences of the bare assertion that physical laws agree between inertial frames.

Here is the algebraic content. Translational symmetry makes the transformation between coincident origins a linear transformation. In one spatial direction the moving origin $x=vt$ fixes $x^{\prime }=a(v)(x-vt)$. Isotropy and the inverse transformation at $-v$ allow the standard calibrated formTo see why $K$ is universal, temporarily write the upper-right entry as $-b(v)$, leaving the lower-left entry $-v$. Equality of the two diagonal entries in a composite boost gives $b(u)v=ub(v)$, so $b(v)/v=K$ is constant for nonzero boosts. Inversion fixes $a(v{)}^2(1-K{v}^2)=1$, with the positive branch continuous at zero. This is the universality of an invariant speed under boost composition.

The resulting velocity-addition formula law and invariant quadratic expression areFor $K>0$, $C=K^{-1/2}$ is an invariant limiting speed; setting the empirically determined $C$ equal to the vacuum speed of light gives the standard Lorentz transformation. For $K=0$, $t^{\prime }=t$ and $x^{\prime }=x-vt$: an entirely consistent Galilean transformation satisfying the stated Einstein's principle of relativity. Thus the general assumptions do not establish that an invariant finite speed exists, much less identify it with light.

There is also a formal negative-$K$ branch, which has a rotation-like geometry in the time–space plane. Standard derivations exclude it using additional global assumptions, such as a preserved time orientation and unrestricted composition of admissible boosts. Without identifying those assumptions it is misleading to claim a two-way classification from the Einstein's principle of relativity alone. In three spatial dimensions isotropy requires the same constant in every direction.

The light postulate is therefore dispensable as the starting point for a conditional kinematical derivation; empirical input remains indispensable in identifying our world's value and sign of $K$. Albert Einstein's original construction uses the light postulate and Einstein synchronisation, making that empirical connection explicit.^[ref] Replacing the postulate by an independently established finite invariant speed changes the route, rather than deriving all of special relativity from relativity alone.

Write ${\Gamma }_a(v)=(1-v^2/a^2{)}^{-1/2}$. The first proposed Lorentz transformation isFor the next transformation, write ${\Gamma }_b(u)=(1-u^2/b^2{)}^{-1/2}$ and substitute the first pair into $x^{\prime \prime }={\Gamma }_b(u)(x^{\prime }-u{t}^{\prime })$ and $t^{\prime \prime }={\Gamma }_b(u)(t^{\prime }-u{x}^{\prime }/b^2)$. The result isThe direct transformation between $S$ and $S^{\prime \prime }$ must belong to the same standard boost family with the same calibration of space and time units. Such a transformation has one common factor multiplying the coefficient of $x$ in $x^{\prime \prime }$ and that of $t$ in $t^{\prime \prime }$. Equality of these coefficients for generic $uv\ne 0$ requiresThe case $uv=0$ alone cannot constrain the scales, but a transformation law must work for arbitrary successive boosts. Once the scales agree, their composed velocity is $V=(u+v)/(1+uv/a^2)$ and the common factor is ${\Gamma }_a(V)$. This establishes the universality of an invariant speed under boost composition within the proposed family.

Finiteness needs physical input. Sending $a^2$ to infinity gives the consistent Galilean transformation $x^{\prime }=x-vt$, $t^{\prime }=t$. Its boosts compose with $V=u+v$ and satisfy a relativity principle. Thus the composition calculation itself does not prove that $a^2$ cannot be infinite. The finite propagation speed of light in vacuum and its invariance, supplied by the second of the postulates of special relativity, rule out this limit for physical spacetime. Under a Galilean transformation, a ray with laboratory speed $c$ would have speed $c-v$ in the moving frame, in conflict with that postulate.

Finally, the common invariant scale must be identified with the physical speed of light, rather than an arbitrary speed measured in one frame. Requiring a ray $x=ct$ also to obey $x^{\prime }=c{t}^{\prime }$ givesHence the physical scale is $a=c$, taking the positive speed. The postulate about light identifies and requires a finite invariant scale; closure alone only establishes its universality. This distinction is necessary for a logically valid answer to the question's request to exclude infinity.