Logicandreason

I wondered when this pathetic argument was going to rear its ugly head. The good old fall back position based on a logical fallacy, "you are just too stupid to understand my superior arguments." I actually understand Special Relativity better than you, and that's why I can ask question s that you are scared of trying to answer. But let's say I'm an ignorant sod, son of pig farmer, incapable of putting together a sentence of more than a half dozen words not containing more than 2 syllables a piece. So please now answer the Question not for me, but for some other more intelligent person almost as smart as your gifted self, for their benefit. Go on, grace us with enlightenment of your awesome intellect and inexhaustible knowledge. Or you could just back away quietly and let someone else answer the question. However, based on the way that the others here have kept quiet, maybe they all think you are the smartest one here.

You really are missing two points. 1. All you needed to do was explain with Math equations alone, what Einstein and Newton could were able to explain in less than 20 words. You said that your Math explanation was going to be more accurate or removed the possibility of misinterpretation or subjective opinions. You just proved that you required not only a hell of a lot of equations, but also a lot of English explanation anyway. So thank for the effort, but the simple English statement in Postulate One is perfectly concise and complete and easily understandable, that's why Einstein wrote it that way. Math can't save the day. its just a tool. 2. You or anyone else has even tried to answer my Original question. Point One is simply a bit of a diversion and we can move on from that now. As an Expert, what can you tell me? Also, I think that in this statement, "Regardless of geometry or regardless of observer all observers will agree on invariant quantities" surely you really meant invariant QUALITIES. Not Quantities. Quantity is a measure, which is not always constant from one inertial frame to another, but the Qualities of an object will remain. For instance, based on those Laws of Physics that Einstein was referring to in Postulate one, a object that has a measured weight of x in one frame, can have a measured weight of y in another frame subject to the local gravitational force. Yet the whole time, the objects Mass has remained invariant. We measure Mass by measuring its Weight in Earth gravity. But the theory goes that the Mass wont change when we measure it on the moon, but the Weight will. Measurement is a Quantity, Mass is invariant and is a Quality. This is all in keeping with those Laws of Physics that Einstein directly referenced.

You were not supposed to be making a lecture on transformations. Your task was simple, and you said it was simple. I showed you that what you wrote is NOT describing what Einstein wrote in his first postulate. I asked for that, you failed to supply anything resembling such a math only explanation. But lets drop this, and move on to answering my question. Please say nothing else other than answer the question or tell us that you can not answer.

I was expecting that you were going to give me a concise mathematical version of the simple English statement " In all Inertial frames of reference, the Laws of Physics, Kinematics, Optics and Electrodynamics are equally applicable." I don't see that anywhere in your suspiciously overly long collection of advanced math and unrelated equations. You actually fail big time when you say, "Now due to length contraction these Euler angles are no longer preserved so we need transformation rules " because as Einstein was proposing his Postulates, there IS NO SUCH THING AS Length Contraction at this stage.. so those fancy looking equations that follow are inadmissible as part of a math based explanation of the way, way more concise plain English statement, " In all Inertial frames of reference, the Laws of Physics, Kinematics, Optics and Electrodynamics are equally applicable." It is no wonder that Einstein had his whole theory outlined in simple words, in the initial first few pages, because Physics principals are more easily communicated through simple words, and the Math can only follow afterwards, and must be based squarely on the simple plain language hypothesis. So much for that attempt. Lets move forward. Now back to the topic which was up to a question that I asked. So can you answer the question or not? Do I have to repeat the question yet again? So now that you have FAILED at this task, please answer my Question. Or ask the help of an Expert, if it is too hard for you. (also, why on earth are you including General Relativity in a conservation that is specifically on Special Relativity according the 1905 Paper?)

Well then, do allow me the same leeway as you expect to get, when I examine what Einstein wrote in his masterpiece of Scientific literature, every word is a golden nugget. Worthy of close inspection and included by the Geniuses careful consideration. Simply put, you wish to use plan English to explain what you want to present in Math, but you refuse to think about the words Einstein used to present his Math. Well, Einstein concluded this. He said in his Second Postulate that Light speed was a universal constant measurement (c) and as such was every bit as valid as the other universal Laws mentioned in the First Postulate. Thus now, we consider that the speed of light in a vacuum is one of the Laws of Physics. Or an Axiom, either way, its applied in the exact same way as other Las of Physics and Math are applied. But it cant be only an Axiom, because its claimed to have been proved 100%. If it's not a Law, then I can say that the speed of light varies, right? And everyone here is claiming and in agreement that when Einstein said, constant determined speed of light (c" he was talking about the known measured speed of light. These are all the actual claims of Einstein believing experts. So where is the strawman exactly?

Funny, I was sure that you said that "I could easily show you what the first postulate means in terms of the mathematics". But I see no Math here, just a lot of Opinions, and you prefer to just focus on math, because opinions are merely matters of intellectual posturing. So please just give me equations that fully explain the First Postulate. After that, please answer my question that has not been addressed yet.

Try answering my question, I asked first, many hours ago. Stop this ducking and dogging. Its not even a hard question. But I've nothing against Math, its essential in Physics and everything else. But wrong equations mess good math up totally. Ok, Lets have your Math only version of the First Postulate. I'm happy to listen. Why do you think that Einstein never bothered to just state the First Postulate in Math only language, when the Paper was intended for consumption by other Mathematicians? He did not write the Scientific paper for the public, who were into Readers Digest.

I made a mistake, it was said by Mordred. But as all you guys are on the same page on this matter, the idea still stands. Unless you want to distance yourself from what Mordred said? Do you have another belief about this? Ok, its Swansont. I never intended to cause you endless grief and harm. Please try to get over it. Test all you want. But when the data and results are both gathered and then massaged by the application of the equations of the same theory that you claim to be trying to discredit, your argument becomes implausible. Anyway, I'm still waiting for someone to answer my Question. Which is an outstanding matter that needs to be addressed.

Again, great, good on you. But as the gathering of the data itself requires the application if analysis, and as that analysis ALWAYS requires to be done according to established beliefs of Physics, You absolutely will have had to use Einstein's theories and their math from the get go. You whole understanding of what's happening out there in space is dependant of Einstein's theories. To QUOTE you directly: "The principles of GR and SR are two of the most rigidly tested theories we have..... They have been so rigidly tested that the vast majority of all major Theories incorporate SR and GR." So its therefore IMPOSSIBLE for you to have critically tested Einstein's theories looking for errors, when your experiments relied on the very theories you claim to have been critically reviewing. Your Data has already been corrupted by Einstein's theories. Einstein's theory can't prove Einstein's theory.

You DID say that you are not interested in the text based analysis of the hypothesis. (analysis is only opinion) Rather you were ONLY interested in the Math, because the value of the whole paper is really in the ability if the Math to make accurate predictions. Therefore, its not inaccurate to conclude that as far as you are concerned, Einstein COULD have talked about Donald Ducks trousers, as long as he gave an equation that seems correct, is all that matters to you. You made up pseudonym is not even a real Name, therefore YOU may have spelt it wrong, I was merely suggesting a better spelling.

Of course you did. But measurements of what? In what previously untried experiment that you designed to try to disprove Einstein's theory? Because doing what you (they) always do, in the same way, but expecting different results is one way to describe stupidity. And then having the data, what math equations did you apply? I bet it was they equations that you were taught to apply. Result, as expected, the same as every other student. Proving nothing other than that this approach using those equations will give the same results. I am still expecting an answer to my question: "I challenge you to make a measurement of ANYTHING, when you have no starting point. Give me one example that this is possible." I have to repeat this because no one has answered the question, and the post is getting lost in time...... About Einstein’s thought process in the1905 Paper. Einstein made two comments which he then elevated to the status of Postulates. First is: "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate," Second is: "and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." I want to stop here and examine the logic of so far. Please consider the words “which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former,”. So in what way is the simple statement that light has a constant determinable velocity, irreconcilable with the Laws of Physics, of the Laws of Kinematics specifically, as the study of Motion is called Kinematics and Einstein's moves on to “the Kinematic Part” of his Paper immediately after the introduction. So what is “apparently irreconcilable” about Light having a constant determinable speed with the Laws of Kinematics? (Newtons Laws of Motion to be precise) Pause for your consideration and reply. But Einstein actually spelled out exactly why he believed there was a conflict. Because the Purpose of the whole paper is to SOLVE this conflict, thus opening the door to new explanations for other related "problems" such as Maxwell's work and Observations such as M&M interferometer. So what is the answer?

I believe my question was, "I challenge you to make a measurement of ANYTHING, when you have no starting point. Give me one example that this is possible." As far as "conducting your own experiments", they were only repeating what has already been done by others. Just to see for yourself. And the conclusions were already told to you before you even started the experiment. Do you have a published Paper on some experiment that you devised that was different than all the others? Please provide the link.

Obviously, you did not look in the right places for the error that you say you initially suspected. And then you gave up way too soon. Einstein's theories are cunningly well contrived deceptions, and I'm not going to speculate on whether the deceptions are intentional or accidental. If you are really so open, they you would not be fighting so very hard to not consider fairy what I'm trying to say. And the error is EASILY provable to be where the error is in the 1905 Paper. And I told you. MEASUREMENTS are NOT LAWS. Light's Constancy of Motion can be considered as a Law, but it's necessarily subjectively measured numerical value can ever be considered as a Law, because any measurement is certainly a relative value. And that is where you got tricked. Where is that measurements relative origin of the measurement? Einstein pretends that it doesn't exist. But it MUST, or you cant take a measure of anything. I challenge you to make a measurement of ANYTHING, when you have no starting point. Give me one example that this is possible. I'll wait for your intellectually honest reply.

About Einstein’s thought process in the1905 Paper. Einstein made two comments which he then elevated to the status of Postulates. First is: "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate," Second is: "and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." I want to stop here and examine the logic of so far. Please consider the words “which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former,”. So in what way is the simple statement that light has a constant determinable velocity, irreconcilable with the Laws of Physics, of the Laws of Kinematics specifically, as the study of Motion is called Kinematics and Einstein's moves on to “the Kinematic Part” of his Paper immediately after the introduction. So what is “apparently irreconcilable” about Light having a constant determinable speed with the Laws of Kinematics? (Newtons Laws of Motion to be precise) Pause for your consideration and reply. But Einstein actually spelled out exactly why he believed there was a conflict. Because the Purpose of the whole paper is to SOLVE this conflict, thus opening the door to new explanations for other related "problems" such as Maxwell's work and Observations such as M&M interferometer. So what is the answer? I know all this. Great, so all of you have believed in exactly the same things because you have all been instructed with the same information in the same way from the same books by the same professors. "If you keep doing what you have already done, you will still get what you have always got." That explains your solidarity. So great that you are all in the big sciency club, much like a Church Group, all have to accept what you have been told. But an appeal to such Authority is of course a Logical Fallacy. None of you would have those Letters after your names if you have stepped one inch off the prescribed track back in Uni. (about this particular faith in Einstein's claims) I would prefer to just discuss the claims Einstein made, and see if his logic and conclusions are really valid. Or is it all based on error? As "experts" you ought to be able to look at Einstein's work from a totally critical angle, ignoring your own cherished pre set beliefs.. But clearly you are totally unwilling to do that. And that is a sign that you have not been taught well in the way of Science, where there is no settled beliefs, and anything could be wrong or right, and any theory can be challenged, by ANYONE regardless of the FAME of the theory's Author. You guys are NOT EXPERTS on Science , you ARE experts on WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD. Science is the continued striving to understand, and its not owned by any University or enshrined in any sacred text.

Well I hope you can be more reasonable that the other guy here, who seems to be calling white, black. So really? You are willing to honestly discuss this, and concede valid points one by one if I should make any? Then APPLY those valid points to the hypothesis? Ill start by asking "Is Physics ONLY interested in comparing predictions of Equations to observations, and any explanations of why or how the equation was derived is simply irreverent? Swansnot seems to be saying that Einstein may as well written, "Donald Duck doesn't wear trousers, and e=mc2, go check it out. (the textural explanation is not required because of peoples opinions.) Math alone is what Physics is all about. Funny, I thought Physics is what Physics is about, and Math is about Mathematics. But Swansnot is then more than willing to believe certain peoples opinions over others opinions regarding the meaning and interpretation of experiments. (which we know can not be proof of a theory)

Nature doesn't have to be rational to us, but certainly Einsterin's science Paper must be. To claim that Einstein's paper might be nonsensical drivel, but the Math checks out, so everything is fine, is in itself an irrational statement to make. Anyway, the math itself is derived directly from the text arguments, and doesn't "add up" as you believe, so you are not left with anything remaining that is believable. I showed the errors in the text arguments, I explained that the conclusions were utterly fantastical, and now I'm saying that not even the Math is believable. You can only follow along with Einstein's math and get to the same result, IF you also agree to follow alone what his obviously irrational textural arguments. And do all that in preference to a very straight Physics system that has no paradoxes, no unintuitive equations, where a rod doesn't shrink, and no one can grow older than their twin just because of a joy ride. So far, rationality is 100% on the side that says SR theory is nonsense. You can NOT derive correct Math from nonsense. Your Math is wrong. The text is wrong, the conclusions are wrong.

My statement are clearly not "Opinions". And please explain scientifically how my statement are related to "metaphysics". Math can not come before a rational Hypothesis. Math must always be based squarely ON the statements and conclusion of the Hypothesis. And that is exactly why the peer review process as first task, is to ensure that any submitted Paper is written according to a professional standard, and contains no errors of omission or inaccuracies and especially it's statements must not be ambiguous. Unambiguity, meaning it has clear meaning, and anyone reading the document will not be able to misconstrued. That's what all those words were about in the Paper that Einstein included before he got to any math. Einstein was genius, he ought to know how to write a Science Paper so thaat its precise meaning is obvious and can not be misconstrued. So if you are willing to skip the explanations, and jump directory to Math, you are no no longer really being scientific. My explanation and review of Einstein's Paper shows clearly that because he has made logical errors, then his Math will be necessarily wrong, based on wrong conclusions. Distance being variable is a wrong conclusion, an irrational conclusion. This is not about opinions or metaphysics. Nonsense can not develop rational Math equations. No, BEFORE you make the effort to conduct any experiment, don't you think it may be prudent to see if the concepts of the Hypothesis is rational? This is what peer review process is supposed to do. Clearly no one peer reviewed this paper. Or they were not skilled at critical thinking, or they were Einstein's mates.

You are jumping the gun don't you think? Before you rush of with interpreting the results of some experiment, you must justify the validity of the hypothesis. If I hypothesized that the moon was made of cheese, would you embark of a manned expedition to the Moon and set up a cheese mining company on the strength if my claims? Maybe you would. But rational scientific Papers MUST stand up to rational scrutiny. And I've just shown that it doesn't. You response is to ignore what I'm saying and just point to some interpretations of experiment. But as I'm right, then there WILL be alternative interpretations for all those experiments that do not break the Laws of Physics as Einstein's theory has to. Really, think about it. Einstein's theory means that if something just moves really fast, and you observe it, it will really physically shrink, but only in one direction, and while its losing volume, it gains Mass from nowhere, and also Time gets to distort but not for everyone. And if 1000 observers that each have a different state of motion, watch that same object, they will all see something totally different. Doesn't sound fishy at all. But my claim is that rational Physics (Classical Physics) is not only totally rational, totally logical, with sane sets of Laws, whose application is clearly working in our real experience, and Time, Distance and Mass standards are the same for everyone. Do you not at least agree that Classical Physics is a far simpler, Mathematically correct, system that deserves the right to critically review Einstein's proposals? There are no indisputable observations that can only be explained by Einstein's Relativity, that cant be explained by other means. No one can claim to have indisputably demonstrated Time Dilation, or Length Contraction or even the invariant result of light speed. Never been done. Every experiment requires a lot of prior assumptions to be considered as TRUE, and as always, there are other interpretations possible. That's why they say that you can never offer an experiment as PROOF for a theory. You have to have a solid HYPOTHESIS as the main claim. Not rely on experiment interpretation.

Another way of looking at what I'm saying, is to examine the First Postulate. Its affirming the Laws of Motion, of Kinematics, etc. But please tell me one example of any Law of Kinematics, of Mechanics, that is claiming that a MEASURED result, IS A LAW. Never. So Einstein's statement that "the Laws of Physics", (Kinematics in this case) are identical in all inertial frames, is totally correct. The Laws ARE equally applicable. BUT, a MEASUREMENT is NOT A LAW! You got that about face. It's actually: Time and Length CONCEPTS are "Laws of Physics", so MEASUREMENT of speed is relative to the frame you are in. Subjective Measurements can never be LAWS of Physics. This is rational , your claim is irrational. ANY measurement of ANY objects speed is necessarily RELATIVE. Show me where Einstein stipulates the reference for 298,000 mps...(c) . PLEASE. Oh but there is a massive difference between "insulting my common sense" or being "unintuitive" and it being totally irrational and without Logic. Anyway, your comment doesn't address the problem I've raised does it? So you are saying that "Yes, SR doesn't make any sense, but its true anyway, but I cant explain why or address your issues. SR is just correct and so you have to live with it.

Well that attitude is the exact opposite of what a real Scientist would say and think. What you are saying is that your interpretation is correct, by mine is incorrect, because you say so, without any justification at all. I've explained with logic and reason where there is a real error, and you have no counted to my claims. None. And you exhibit your unfounded arrogance in saying that "you don't want to waste time to educate me". The truth is that you are now experiencing cognitive dissonance, and choose to try to back away rather than face facts. If you had a decent response, I certainly would be hearing all about it. Normally objections to Einstein's theories are met with a constant barrage of debunking statements. But this time, you just give up so easily? I'll wait till someone else is willing to come up with some counter to my claims. Thanks for your time. We are not able to continue to any Math in the Paper, till Einstein first explains why there is actually some problem that needs to be solved, and then also describes how he can solve that problem. He did not show that there was an actual valid problem, and then he fails to give a logical solution for the apparent problem that he did describe. Any math solutions must be based on a solid explanation as a pre requisite. Einstein's actual statement on what he thinks is the problem is contained here: "the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest." and also that "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. (inertial frames of reference) and when paired with "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." So no Absolute rest, the Laws work in all Inertial Frames, but Light is never changing in speed" so in his words, "these postulates are apparently irreconcilable". So there is the problem. However, I've just shown how this "apparently irreconcilable" problem is only caused by a flawed understanding of the difference between constant velocity and the MEASURED value of that constant velocity. Once you see that the two are not the same, all the "apparently irreconcilable" problems go away.

Yes, Light did have a measured value at that time. it was measured in 1862 by Leon Foucault 298,000 km/sec and calculated by Maxwell in 1865. to be about 300,000. But have you forgotten that Einstein is writing a scientific Paper, and as he is supposed to be a Physicist and somewhat of a Mathematician, you really think that he would claim a singular, set, fixed numerical speed but FAIL to mention from what reference point that measurement was taken? ALL MEASURES REQUIRE A REFERENCE. Where is that reference for "c" to be found in this Paper. Please quote. He wrote carefully, that the Light Source and any Aether Medium can't be used, but he FORGOT that all measurements are ONLY VALID when an associated reference origin is specified. Why did he fail to state this obvious fact?

Yes, but what does that mean exactly? Of COURSE it has a "velocity that is constant", ( and also a DEFINITE constant Velocity) but how did you get from that obvious statement, to "therefore anyone regardless of their own speed will get 298,000 m.p.s ? When you see that label, "c", you instantly think "Oh, 298,000 m.p.s. that is what 'c" means." But it most absolutely does not mean that. It means that whatever the speed of light is, we are giving that a label called c. You are not thinking this through very carefully. If a velocity is "Constant", then it HAS to be DEFINITE. Or it would not be constant. But MEASUREMENT OF THAT VELOCITY is not the same thing, is it?

The WHOLE paper is discussing constant motion, Try not to be anally retentive about this. anyway, aside from the whole context of the Hypothesis, his exact words are, "The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and on the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light." Einstein's whole approach about Light is that its always has "CONSTANT velocity" in a vacuum. But constant velocity" is NOT the same a CONSTANCY of a MEASUREMENT. So how does the fact that you can't find the exact phrase "it is moving with a constant speed" in the Paper, alter or negate my criticisms of the contents of the paper?

Being forced onto giving a very short explanation is a bit unfair, as I can't fully explain the error in just one paragraph. After all, Einstein had the luxury of as many pages of explanation as he wanted. But a cut down explanation is this. In the paper, in the argument Einstein is proposing, he makes an error of conflating two completely different statements that are simply incompatible. I have to ask you a question to directly demonstrate what I'm on about. Is the phrase "it is moving with a constant speed", directly, mathematically and rationally interchangeable with the phrase, "it is moving at 60mph" ? The only possible answer is of course, NO. One is referring to a state of motion remaining consistent, while the other is specifying a MEASURED value of an objects speed, which could very well be constant. While is totally correct as far as we know, to postulate that Light's motion is CONSTANT in a vacuum. its actually irrational to claim that a specific MEASURE of Lights speed must be constant as recorded by anyone, with no reference to their own speed. Einstein specifically pointed out that Light motion was not influenced by the motion of the Source, and because there was no Medium, no Aether discovered, then he INSINUATED that "Light has no Preferred Reference frame". His conclusion was that light speed must remain identical as seen from any frame of reference, because "The Laws of Physics" are applicable in all inertial frames. Now Light does indeed have no preferred frame of reference. That is true. And its also true that no mater who observes Lights motion, irrespective of his own state of motion (inertial motion) he will still correctly say that Lights motion is CONSTANT. But this is not the same, its not equivalent to claiming that observers will all MEASURE what that speed is, and all get 298,000 m.p.s as their answer. Because "it is moving with a constant speed", is not interchangeable with, "it is moving at 60mph". So NOT finding a Medium that could act as a reference for the measure of Lights speed, AND also realizing that the Light Source also was not a valid reference from which to take a measure, Einstein said there is no reference at all, therefore every observer must get 298,000 m.p.s (c) for Light speed because Light speed is CONSTANT. But this is a wrong claim, because its NOT the MEASUREMENT that is CONSTANT, its the STATE of MOTION that is Constant. Its also wrong because there IS A PREFEERED FRAME for Lights measurement! Let me explain what that Preferred frame is. (Preferred Frame for MEASUREMENT! not preferred frame for constant MOTION ) In the First Postulate, Einstein called on "The Laws of Physics, Optics, EM, and Kinematics Laws", stating that they were VALID, in all Inertial Frames. All Physicists knew this anyway. Those Laws, (The Laws of Kinematics, of Mechanics of Newton specifically) DEFINED what was an Inertial Frame. Now its those Laws that Einstein called on to force us to accept that "if Light has a constant speed "c", in the "stationary frame, then it MUST also have that same speed, "c" in all other Inertial Frames". But the up-shoot of this claim as it seems to read, is that to make the Math work, then the Classical belief that a meter is a meter for everyone and a second is a second for everyone, had to be discarded. Thus Time Dilation and Length Contraction. However, this SEEMINGLY LOGICAL result, has LOGICAL and inescapable repercussions. Namely, that NONE of Classical Physics can now function, because Classical Physics DEMANDS ABSOLUTE STABILITY of Distance and Time. Einstein destroyed that base for Classical Physics, and so now the Postulate ONE is INVALID, because ALL THOSE "LAWS of Kinematics, of MOTION, ONLY work with stable DISTANCES AND Time. Einstein makes a theory that RELIES on Classical Physics (postulate One) then proceeds to DESTROY Postulate One as his finale. That really having your cake and eating it too. Don't try to say that "Classical Physics is still correct but not for relativistic speeds". Because you can't destroy the very nature of space and time then still say that it doesn't matter. There is only one math equation for speeds, distance and Time now, and it uses the Lorentz transformation equation, even if the difference is practiacall nothiing at low speeds, the Equation is still the only correct one, ACCORDING to Einstein's Theory. But there is more. I was going to show that there IS A PREFEERED FRAME for the Measurement of Light speed, even thought there is no absolute Medium or Absolute location or "stationary" Light Source... When you make a Measurement, ANY measurement, what do you need? For Speed Measurements, you MUST have the following: 1, something that is the object 2, a Time counting Device 3. A REFERENCE LOCATION from which that Measure is RELATIVE. Now that reference location is usually WHERE YOU ARE LOCATED when you recorded the elapsed time. So what does this mean? It means that ANY MEASURE of Lights Speed is ONLY RELATIVE to the person taking the Measurement, just as Newton indicated in those Laws of Mechanics" that Einstein was totally happy with in Postulate One. So Einstein's claim that "there is no Aether, and the Source is not the reference, therefore ANY and every inertial frame is the reference for the ONE SUBJECTIVE original measurement, (186,000 m.p.s. "c")" is INCORRECT. Because according to the Laws of Postulate One, the Measure of 186,000 m.p.s DOES HAVE A SINGLE REFERENCE LOCATION, that location where the first measurer was located, and NOT ANYWHERE ELSE! All subsequent measures of Light speed MUST ACCOUNT for any differences in relative speeds between each Observer. As a pre-emptive measure, Ill have to say that EVERY bit of claimed "experimental Evidence that SEEMS to support Einstein", is either Fraud, mistake or misinterpretation due to fantastic bias. I'm sure that every experiment, on careful CRITIICAL and disbelieving examination, will show that its not all a done deal. Experimental evidence always has more than one possible interpretation. Observation of CONSTACY of UNIFORM motion, is NOT THE SAME THING as a MEASURED VALUE OF THAT CONSTANT MOTION. Once you get that truth into your head, you can't justify Einstein's Hypothesis, as he makes the error of this false conflation, in the very first few paragraphs of the Paper. Supporting Evidence can NOT PROVE ANY THEORY, and as its actually IMPOSSIBLE to disprove by Experiment, the Hypothesis is "unfalsifiable" because its irrational and contains this major error of Logic.

The evidence of the Error in fully contained in Einstein's Paper. Go find it, its really there, but you missed it.