You previously claimed that Einstein did not introduce Maxwells equations as an explicit postulate any more than he did the rest of classical physics but now you conceed finallythat he adopted Maxwells equations as one of his principleS in his paper giving a heuristic argument for massenergy equivalence and you also conceed the obvious fact that this is as Einstein noted with the of course that youre so fond of tantamount adopting the principle of lightspeed invariance   To really appreciate this you have to ask yourself what it means to adopt Maxwells equations as a principle Those equations can be reconciled with the principle of relativity in infinitely many different ways To give this principle meaning we must assert among other things that the parameters appearing in those equations take the same numerical values when evaluated with respect to any system of inertial coordinates as operationally defined Now the key parameters characterizing Maxwells equations are the electrostatic and magnetic units whose ratio is the speed of light so the only way of postulating Maxwells equations in a sense compatible with special relativity is to assert that the speed of light has the same numerical value with respect to any system of inertial coordinates If you do not explicitly stipulate this the postulate of Maxwells equations is hopelessly ambiguous and does not suffice to single out the Minkowski metric Conversely if you DO stipulate the invariance of the ratio of electric to magnetic units then none of the remaining assumptions entailed in Maxwells equations some of which are invalid are needed This is why as Einstein specifically said he avoided postulating Maxwells equations in the derivation of the Lorentz transformation So your claims are falsified in several different ways so many that it is becoming tedious to enumerate them  Look the result from the first paper on which he bases the second paper is the equation for the energy of an electromagnetic wave with respect to relatively moving systems of inertial coordinates This comes from Section  of the first paper which is in the Electrodynamic Part of that paper in which he applies the Lorentz transformation   derived in the Kinematic Part of the paper based on the two postulates  to Maxwells equations At the conclusion of the Kinematic Part he says  We have now derived the required propositions of the kinematics that correspond to our two principles and we will now proceed to show their application in electrodynamics  So you see he has already derived the Lorentz transformation which as he repeatedly stressed is the entire content of special relativity and he is proceeding to apply this to one particular class of physical phenomena namely MaxwellLorentz electrodynamics In this part of the paper he derives the relativistic expression for the energy of an electromagnetic wave in accord with Maxwells equations and it is this result that he uses in the second paper This is why he says in the second paper referring to the first There I based myself on the MaxwellHertz equations He is saying this is the basis of the expression for the energy of an electromagnetic wave but of course the relativistic form comes from applying the kinematics of special relativity which was derived in the first part of the earlier paper based on the two postulates of relativity and lightspeed invariance  If you have any understanding at all of the actual content of those two papers his statements are perfectly clear and cannot possibly be misinterpreted Your claims are falsified in so many different ways that is becomes ever more tedious to enumerate them You conspicuously decline to reconcile your claims about Einstein dropping the second postulate with the fact that in over a dozen papers written over the next fifty years of his life he consistently asserted the primacy of the lightspeed postulate often listing it first rather than second And you refuse to comment on why he repeatedly made statements explaining why he based special relativity on those two postulates and NOT on Maxwells equations And on and on  All were doing here is proving the wisdom of the Wikipedia rules designed to suppress physics cranks It does no good to argue with physics cranks All we can do is insist that the article contain ONLY sourced statements from reputable publications My version is thoroughly sourced The alternate version is essentially just an unsourced statement of some editors opinions The repeated reversions to that unsourced POV original research is beginning to look a lot like vandalism