John Smith wrote:
On 5/31/2011 11:59 PM, Mike Painter wrote:
John Smith wrote:
On 5/31/2011 9:42 PM, Olrik wrote:

...
Huh?
...

Yeah, the particularly dense have a problem here, let me rephrase:

"Nothing can't hold something."

The logic of that statement is self-explanatory. You can "put"
something into nothing because there would be no "space" to "put" it
into!
Indeed, if you "succeed" in putting something into nothing -- it
would cease to exist! DUH!, there would be "nothing" to hold the
"something!"
Which ignores the "truely empty box" part of your comment.

As for "aether". I suspect you are confusing it with "ether" and you
should stop smelling it.



I can give you a true example of "nothing."

You have a small box, the inside dimension of 1x1x1 inches. Into this
box, you place a 1x1x1 inch O.D. cube.

Now you have an example of "nothing." As, there is "nothing" between
the outside of the cube and the inside of the box -- and, you don't
have any possibility of movement of the cube within the box!

And, the reason is simple, you can't move "something" into "nothing!"

This is what "nothing" is.

Regards,
JS

Weak. You can't build such a device. If you could then you could not place
one box into the other and have it touch bottom as the air would be
compressed and have no means of escape.

So consider it as a thought experiment and ignore all of modern physics.
Then explain how you would tell the difference between an infinite number of
such boxes and nothing.

When you are done tell us how this nothing precludes your idea of an
"aether"