[GoC]

Why is the speed of light independent of inertial frames of reference?

   Time = motion, Where light is produced in space becomes independent of mass because they are two different systems both controlled by fundamental energy of space. Fundamental energy moves the electron in a standard pattern of least resistance. When the electron jumps in its rotation pattern to a higher level caused by macro mass friction to space spin energy light is created from that position. The fundamental space energy is independent of the change of position of macro mass from the friction point caused by macro mass. Light is the maximum speed of time. Time is constant at that speed of c. Vector energy of mass reduces the availability of fundamental energy to the limit of c. All energy being used for the forward rotational motion. But mass has nothing to push macro mass faster than c in SR. GR on the other hand can grow a sun with a dilation of gravity attraction faster than the speed of light. This dilation no longer allows atoms to be separate from each other. This creates a super element we describe as a black hole. Consider our protons as a marble in a football field. A black hole is a football field filled with marbles. The end point to the entropy of mass. Light is no longer created because the black hole lacks fundamental energy. Light is not sucked into a black hole and light is not created by a black hole. Light merely follows the immense dilation of space energy by the inverse square of the distance curve created around the black hole. 

The electron moves through space like it is rolling around a DNA strand. That is the rotating vector motion.

[guest4091]

mmfiore
"It is the independence of the speed of light from other objects in motion that I believe needs a good solid mechanical explanation."
That was the original statement.
It isn't about the constant value of light speed in a vacuum, nor the constant measured light speed in any inertial frame. 
Light speed could be c or c +/_ u meters/second, which may modify physics to some degree, but the independence property is the significant difference vs material object motion. Light does not acquire the speed of the emitter. 
This limits rates of energy transfer to c, which limits attainable speeds of matter, and communication rates.
Any process involving light transfer between objects moving relative to the point of emission will occur at a slower rate (as observed by anyone not moving with the objects).

The original statement currently has no answer. Theoretical speculation could be to consider space as having a structure that determines the behavior of light, in addition to the  properties  of em parameters, virtual particles/vacuum fluctuations, casimer effect, and GR deformation via mass. I.e. space is not a vacuum or void, but not the ether of 1900.
universal frame:
Since the universe has no relative motion, and light is emitted from a point of origin outward, and events do not move, light emission may be considered as occurring in a fixed frame of reference. If SR is formulated within this frame, the motion induced phenomena resulting from a constant independent light speed, show any inertial frame may serve as a fixed frame.

[jerrygg38]

"Relativity never claims the speed of light is the same in every frame". Well, under some specified conditions, not involving accelerations/decelerations it actually define it. When it comes to accelerations/decelerations you can still argue that the discrepancy you measure (from 'c') is a result of 'gravity', locally measured. There are two sets of relativity, one being SR, the other involving gravity (GR). And using SR 'c' is a constant.

   Einstein specifies that the speed of light is C in a vacuum. The speed of light through diamond is about 0.4C while through flint glass it is about 0.5C. A super dense black hole will reduce the speed of light to near zero. Just outside the black hole if the density of particles is low, then the speed should be near C. So GR and SR works nice from a mathematical point of view as long as we can keep all the particles away. Often we are stuck with basic classical physics.

[GoC]

"It is the independence of the speed of light from other objects in motion that I believe needs a good solid mechanical explanation."

Yes, independence of light highly suggests two types of material. Energy and mass are separate as independence suggests.

[mad aetherist]

Please note the tactic that Mr. Duffield just used here, as he does in so many places: quotation mining, also known as cherry-picking a quotation...

This guy is a stalker and a troll. I don't quote-mine, I educate. For example, see this Wikipedia article:
Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics: "It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.[9]"

JohnDuffield -- dont be too concerned about the attacks by the Einsteinian mafia -- SR & GR are krapp. Einsteinians are too stupid to read & understand that the MMXs were not null -- there are lots of articles etc on google.  Michelson's 1887 MMX showed an aetherwind of 8 kmps, less than the expected 30 kmps, thusly he said null in relation to proving all of his postulates re a fixed aether, which Einsteinians say means 00 kmps (liars).
We now know that Michelson's calibration of fringeshift=kmps was out by a factor of 40 (Cahill), plus Munera showed that Michelson's averaging of fringeshifts lost a few more kmps. The background aetherwind blows at 500 kmps south to north at 20 deg to Earth's spin-axis.

Crothers shows that SR is nonsense -- SR is based on a non-general choice of clock co-ordinates (Engelhardt was the first to reveal this in the modern era)(however it was already known in the oldendays). And Einstein knew that it was fake, he knew that he had to choose a privileged observer (what a plagiarizing lieing bastard).

The best expose of GR (equivalence) that i have seen happens to be my own (my annihilation of Einstein's elevator thought experiment) -- i might start a new thread re that one day.

Keep up the good work. Einsteinism will soon be a dead duck, this Einsteinian dark age will soon end, aether will return (it never left).