>> >> >> It is impossible for SR to predict differently from NM. It is based on NM.
>> >> >
>> >> > Excellent!
>> >>
>> >> Any correct finding of SR (if one exists) must be convertible back to NM.
>> >
>> > Of course.
>> > And since, according to Henri Wilson, SR is based on NM,
>> > and since, again according to Henri Wilson, SR is wrong,
>> > NM *must* be wrong too. Crystal clear inescapable logic.
>> > Right?
>> 
>> Did you and Paul Anderson study logic at the same school, by any chance.
>>
>> Of course that doesn't follow. I have said all along, space has NO absolute
>> form. If you want to describe it in terms of the way you think light
>> travels, then so be it. You will probably get the occasional correct or
>> meaningful answer.
>
> No way out, according to elementary logic
>                 P ==> Q
> is equivalent with
>           not Q ==> not P

That's bull!