But since these two postulates are essential to the foundation of the theory that follows, if any of the postulates are shown wrong, as I did, there is no need to go further! If you can’t follow this reasoning, tell me what you are holding back on the particular error of my ways.

Sorry Scott, there is nothing unclear about:

The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another (principle of relativity).

Classical mechanics and Maxwell’s laws just don’t fit this principle (e.g. an observer in rest against an electrical charge only sees an electrical field, but somebody moving in respect to the same electrical charge also observes a magnetic field, which means they would observe completely different phenomena, e.g. that two equally charged particles do not move from each other as fast as for the observer in rest, or eventually move to each other).

Further, as you undoubtedly know, with Maxwell’s theory of the electric-magnetic fields, one can derive that waves must exist, which velocity is 1/sqrt(με) (see **here**). So more specifically ‘The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another ’ means ‘when all observers measure the same values of μ and ε, they also find the same speed for light’. And, once again, frequency does not appear in this formula. To fit this, also empirically established, fact, the Galilean Transformation must be changed into the Lorentz Transformations.

This all has nothing to do with ‘the early universe’ If you think what you write there is flawless logic, then you live in another world…

Same with your critique on the second postulate, that of the constancy of light.

“Light”, here, is again improperly quantified.

This means you need replacements for the Maxwell equations too. Light is perfectly defined, as are its frequency, wavelength and speed.

Sorry Scott, this all is not even serious, it is not even fringe science: it is crackpotism.

It will eventually be published in its full version when I am prepared..

You will never get this published in any serious scientific publication. And if you get it finished (which I doubt, you will stumble on the math), you won’t get it published. I say because it is nonsense, you will say because the scientific community is too much attached to relativity.

You are just demanding that I SHUT UP here.

No! I demand that you bring your theory in a logically and mathematically correct form. Your criticism on the postulates of SR however, are simply a joke.