This approach is seeming intuitive to me as I can visualize what's going on at each step and there's not much complex math. But I'm not sure if I'm on the right track or if I'm making some mistakes. Here it is:
$A$ has set up a space-time co-ordinate system with some arbitrary event along his world-line as the origin. He assigns $(t,x)$ as the co-ordinates of the events around him. $A$ observes $B$ to be traveling at velocity $+v$. $B$ passes $A$ at the origin in $A's$ co-ordinates.
We need to find $(t',x')$ co-ordinates from $B's$ point of view, assuming he also sets up the same event as the origin as $A$ does (the event lies on both their worldlines)
Since all inertial frames are equivalent, $B$ must observe $A$ as moving with $-v$ speed.
If $A'$ worldline has co-ordinates $(t, 0)$ in $A's$ view, then the same worldline should be $(t,-vt)$ in $B's$ view, assuming absolute time (we keep the $t$ co-ordinate unchanged)
If we drop absolute time as a requirement, then $(t,0)$ from $A's$ frame can transform to $(\gamma t, -\gamma v t)$ in $B's$ frame. This is so the speed of $-v$ is still preserved. $\gamma$ is the stretching/squeezing factor and it should only depend on $v$ (because time is homogenous, so the stretching should be by a constant factor. The stretching factor can't depend on $t$ because the absolute $t$ values depend on the arbitrarily chosen origin).
Now we know that $(t,0)$ from $A's$ view transforms to $(\gamma t, -\gamma vt)$ in $B's$ view. By symmetry, $(t,0)$ from $B's$ view transforms to $(\gamma t, \gamma vt)$ in $A's$ view.
So the transformation from $A's$ frame to $B's$ frame transforms points of the form $(\gamma t, \gamma vt)$ to $(t,0)$, and points of the form $(t,0)$ to $(\gamma t, -\gamma vt)$.
Now we look at an object $C$ at rest relative to $A$. Its worldline is a verticle line in $A's$ frame parallel to the $t$ axis. Assuming the distance between $A$ and $C$ is $d$ in $A's$ frame, $B$ passes $C$ at the co-ordinate $(\frac{d}{v}, d)$ in $A's$ frame. Since this point lies on $B's$ worldline, it transforms to $(\frac{d}{\gamma v}, 0)$ in $B's$ frame.
This is where the intersection point of $B's$ and $C's$ worldlines gets transformed to. About the rest of the points on $C'$ worldline, if we shift the origin of $B$ to be the intersection point $(\frac{d}{v}, d$), the situation of transforming $C's$ worldline to $B's$ frame is identical to the one where where we transformed $A's$ worldline to $B'$ frame (as $C$ is also moving at $-v$ wrt $B$. It's just that the intersection point of the worldlines of $C$ and $B$ is different is different from that of $A$ and $B$)
So after transformation, the intersection point transforms to $(\frac{d}{\gamma v},0)$, and the rest of the points on $C's$ worldline transform to the line having the slope $-v$, containing the point $(\frac{d}{\gamma v},0)$, and having the same stretching of $\gamma$ from that point (as $C$ is also moving at $-v$ wrt $B$, it should have the same stretching as $A$)
So now we have the method to transform all the vertical lines (and hence every point) in $A's$ frame to $B's$ frame. Depending on the $\gamma (v)$ function, the transformation should be unique.
I don't know how to get the $\gamma (v)$ function, but is the rest of my above thinking correct or are there any holes in this? I think $\gamma(v)<1$ should correspond to rotations, $=1$ to Gallilean transformation and $>1$ to Lorentz transformation.
Update - I just tried to calculate using my method in the post with $\gamma (v)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2}}$. It does give the same values as Lorentz transformation
I tried transforming $(x,t)=(5,2)$, a random point, with $v=0.5$.
First, we calculate where the worldline $(0.5t,t)$ meets the line $(5,t)$. This intersection point is $(5,10)$ and it will map to $(0,\frac{10}{\gamma})$ after the transformation.
For now, I will shift this point to the origin (and shift the line $(5,t)$ to the $t$ axis) to perform stretching of $\gamma$ on the shifted version of the line.
The point $(5,2)$ lands at the point $(5-5,2-10)=(0,-8)$ after the shift. Now we change the velocity (slope) of this shifted line to $-0.5$ to change to other frame's perspective. Now the point $(0,-8)$ lands at the point $(4,-8)$.
Now we stretch this line by $\gamma$. The point $(4,-8)$ now lands at $(4.62,-9.23)$
Now we finally shift the origin to $(0,\frac{10}{\gamma}=(0,8.66)$. The point $(4.62,-9.23)$ lands at $(4.62,-0.57)$
If we use the Lorentz transform formula on the point $(2,5)$, using $c=1$, $v=0.5$, we also get $(4.62,-0.57)$
I think deriving $\gamma (v)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2}}$ should just be a matter of adding the requirement $T_{-v} (T_{v} (x,y))=(x,y)$, to the method in the post, right? This is equivalent to saying that we recover back the original point after we switch back to the original frame.
The end result of this derivation is the same as Lorentz transformations. Does anyone think there are unjustified steps in the derivation?
Update- I tried to derive the expression for $\gamma (v)$, but it involves the use of a faster than light inertial frame.
Using the method in the post, we first derive the transformation of points of the form $(x,0)$ (points on the horizontal axis of a frame) in terms of $\gamma (v)$.
It is : $x'=\gamma x$, $t'=\frac{x}{v}(\frac{1}{\gamma}-\gamma)$
It' s slope is equal to $\frac{x'}{t'}=\frac{\gamma ^2 v}{1-\gamma ^2}$
The worldline of $B$ (the frame we're transforming to) has a slope $v$ in $A's$ frame. If we consider a frame $C$ whose time axis is the same as $A's$ space axis and whose space axis is the same as $A's$ time axis, then $B'$ worldline has slope $\frac{1}{v}$ in $C's$ frame ($C$ is the faster than light inertial frame here).
Now principle of relativity implies that $C's$ worldline (which is the space axis of $A$) seen in $B's$ frame also has slope of absolute value $\frac{1}{v}$. The sign of the slope can change as sign only refers to direction.
So we have $\frac{\gamma ^2 v}{1-\gamma ^2}= \frac{1}{v}$ or $=\frac{-1}{v}$
This gives $\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+v^2}}$ or $\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2}}$. We accept the latter formula based on experimental evidence.
Does the above work? It involves use of faster than light inertial frames, but I don't think special relativity rules out the existence of those frames as I've read that they're still speculated. Special relativity only rules out slower than light objects getting accelerated to light speed.