Changes

::: I wasn't offended by your "observation", but found it to be inexplicably bizarre.  I articulated the postulate, then you replaced it with a far more complex and non-historical substitute, and then I simplified it into something clearer.  Your response was a petulant accusation, without even addressing the substance my improvement.  Are you saying the more concise, clearer formulation is wrong?  I can't even tell what your view is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:42, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

::: I wasn't offended by your "observation", but found it to be inexplicably bizarre.  I articulated the postulate, then you replaced it with a far more complex and non-historical substitute, and then I simplified it into something clearer.  Your response was a petulant accusation, without even addressing the substance my improvement.  Are you saying the more concise, clearer formulation is wrong?  I can't even tell what your view is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:42, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: Until now, there were the history of the formulations of the postulate in the lecture reads like:

:::: Until now, the history of the formulations of the postulate in the lecture reads like:

::::# the speed of light never changes (original by Aschlafly)

::::# the speed of light never changes (original by Aschlafly)

::::# the speed is the same for all observers (no matter what their relative speeds) (Clement B.)

::::# the speed is the same for all observers (no matter what their relative speeds) (Clement B.)