On May 13, 10:04*pm, wrote:
Let us say we are moving behind light at 99%. Light itself will travel
only 1% further in space in any given interval.

That statement is inconsistent with experiment.

This is Closing
Velocity Theory.

Theories that are inconsistent with experiment are chucked on their
ear. Nice try, though. It always helps to capitalize the words and add
"Theory" at the end when you take a stab in the dark. That strategy is
called Empty Skull Theory.


Space is absolute. There is no space contraction and it is provable.
There are NO FLAT ATOMS.

This must be your third Nobel. Just a week or so ago you were
insisting that atoms were flat and two-dimensional. Today you say
there are no such things. That must be Where Am I Theory.


Your motion cannot change the geometry of the universe. Just as there
are no flat atoms there is no flattened universe. These predictions
show a failing physics. The physics of flat atoms and a flat universe
is the proof of the failure of space contraction theory.

You must mean Space Contraction Theory.

What is
provable is time slowdown by Gamma.

Distances are absolute. Take the AU as an example.

Or the meter. That would be very similar to Henri Wilson's If I Can
Define a Meter Then It's Absolute Theory.

Or maybe Wipe The Foam Off My Chin Theory.


Mitch Raemsch; Twice Nobel Laureate 2008