On Jun 1, 12:59*am, 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

A lot of very square brains are stuffed into square skulls of the
exact same volume here in Google Groups or Usenet/newsgroups, thus
you've nailed the problem. They've managed to put to much of
something into nothing, or vise versa.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”