On Sep 18, 6:47*pm, wrote:
On Sep 18, 8:07*am, Cecil Moore wrote:



wrote:
Please show me the reference that proves empty is not nothing and I
will prove by definition of the word empty that empty is not
something. This is true even in the 21st centruy.

If you chose to use colloquial English, you have to
live (or die) by fuzzy unscientific definitions. The
definition for "empty" that I have been using here is
"absolute nothing", i.e. no space and not even the
structure of space is there. I defined my use of the
word "empty" days ago. It is the same as a *literal*
interpretation of the definition from Websters's:

"empty - 1. containing nothing", i.e. literally

"empty - containing absolutely nothing including space"
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

From Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :

*1. Containing nothing; not holding or having anything within;
* * * * void of contents or appropriate contents; not filled; --
* * * * said of an inclosure, or a container, as a box, room,
* * * * house, etc.; as, an empty chest, room, purse, or pitcher;
* * * * an empty stomach; empty shackles.
* * * * [1913 Webster]

A. I see no induication that the word has changed since at least 1913.
I see no indication of the use of "empty" as a scientific term that
includes absence of space.

B. It is obvious from the above definition that "empty" includes the
presence of space, otherwise there would be no locus of points which
could be characterized as empty. Another way to say it is, in the
absence of space, there is nothing to be empty. Without space, the
word "empty" has no utility or purpose.

in 1913 the study of particles was not linked to the four forces of
the standard model
It hasn,t hit the books because there is no series of references that
can be included.
No book no need for a revised dictionary no need for change
Re
obvious.. a word used when supporting logic is not readily available
Art
Art