On 2011-06-02 18:03, John Smith wrote:
On 6/2/2011 2:13 PM, Mike Painter wrote:
John Smith wrote:
On 6/1/2011 7:22 PM, Mike Painter wrote:
John Smith wrote:
On 6/1/2011 11:23 AM, Mike Painter wrote:

...
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"



ROFLOL ... Go take a physics class, most everything you state,
above, is in error ... correct this or you can go no further!

Been there, done that, although the idea of taking a single physics
class is a bit amusing.

Care to explain where my errors are?
Let's just take the compressed air part for a start.
We will ignore what physics says about surfaces and grant you a
perfectly smooth surface.



Already did that, you missed this post?:

On 6/1/2011 11:23 AM, Mike Painter wrote:
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.

The only thing "weak" about that statement, is the mind which
thought-it/believes-it! You can "cast" the block in the box out of a
liquid which solidified. You can first insert the block into just the
four assembled side of the box, then attach the top and the bottom,
etc., etc.

Again, you don't give me an example of anything but your VERY limited
powers of reason and logic!


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.

Why would I now go into a tangent, off the subject discussed, so you
can baffle us with bull****? Because, you sure as hell ain't going
to be dazzling us with your brilliance!


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


Since the ether can fit between the atoms of all matter known to us,
it would be impossible to ever be able to create a "space" devoid of
ether.
Once again, you demonstrate your VERY limited powers of logic and
reason ... apparently, you think you accomplish something else?

Regards,
JS

You repeat statements not supported my modern science, "logic and reason"
and don't seem to be able to actually explain much of anything.

I even gave you an out by allowing perfectly flat surfaces, something
impossible at the scale you want to work and you explain nothing.

More important you don't give evidence, you give opinion. My high school
physics class gave evidence that your belief system is wrong.




Obviously, I would tell by the choice of your words, the tact you took,
and the points you chose to attempt to argue ... you were going to begin
splitting hairs on such as "flat surfaces" and such and yet expand the
tangents ... all to confabulate, obfuscate and baffle us with your
bull**** ...

No, you didn't mislead me for a second ... I knew.

And, I already admitted that, high school physics teachers get it wrong,
indeed, colleges get it wrong, indeed, and even worse, textbooks repeat
the error(s.) I know, been there, done that ... one of the hardest
things to get rid of is an error injected into the system(s!)

You're a genius.

I truly hope that one day you'll be recognize as such.

Regards,
JS