> > [EL]
> > Enough is enough Bilge, stop making a fool of yourself.
> > Read the OP paper first then decide if you wish to make a fool of
> > yourself forever or if it was quite enough.
>
> Since I can derive the lorentz transforms from the first postulate,
> it suffices as a counter eample to his argument that it can't be done.
>
[EL]
I am quite sure that you can do that, but if you did read his paper
very carefully, you will notice that that was not the point he made.
He refutes the second postulate, and exposes the contradiction of terms
with the first postulate.
Velocities are vectors that become speeds when isotropy is imposed.
You may apply velocity concepts with anisotropy but the constancy of
the speed of light demands isotropy.
You cannot have both contradicting logic assumptions concurrently but
you may make your choice.
This means that relativistic calculations applying velocities must
allow the variance of the speed of light as the condition of isotropy
breaks.
This means that the first postulate implying homogeneity and isotropy
of the physical laws contradicts the usage of vectors as descriptors of
coordinate systems' properties.
I would really appreciate if you quoted parts of his paper and gave
objective arguments against them.
His paper is the best rational anti-relativity analysis I have seen
since 1994 on the news-groups.
It is not a secret that I hold similar ideas if not exactly the same
ideas of the OP, and that is why I am really interested to read what
you have against his rationality of reasoning.

Best regards.  :)

EL