Is the following logically sound?

[roineust]

Premise A: There is no future experiment that can be done at different constant speeds, that will give different results.
Premise A leads to set of actions B: Theories, experiments, formulas.
Set of actions B leads to conclusion C: Space is not a mechanical entity.

Doesn't premise A already contain conclusion C and thus makes set of actions B not supportive of conclusion C?

 

[StevieTNZ]

A sound argument relies on the premises being true and the argument form valid. Do you wish to know if your argument is valid instead?

 

[Nugatory]

Without a comprehensible definition of "mechanical entity" there is nothing to do with this thread except close it.

 

[roineust]

A sound argument relies on the premises being true and the argument form valid. Do you wish to know if your argument is valid instead?

I don't understand