On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 10:21:31 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by John Smith :

On 6/3/2011 10:15 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 14:35:26 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by John :

On 6/2/2011 9:59 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 09:34:10 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by John :

On 6/2/2011 9:25 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote:

Space does not bend.



Einstein disagreed.



Really?

Yes, really; Einstein showed that space bends, and therefore
disagreed with the statement that "Space does not bend".

snip

This is where the confusion begins, too many think:

space = (truly) empty

If that were true you might have a point, but it's not.

Google "space" and "virtual particles"; too many hits to
cite.

Space doesn't bend, the ether does

There is no ether.

... I mean, DUH! How can "nothing" bend?

Space isn't "nothing".

NO, it isn't, because it is FULL of ether ... space, if possible, by
itself is nothing.

What you are referring to IS ether, you simply name it space

Actually, that's what nearly every scientist names it;
"ether" was shown to be nonexistent (or to have zero effect
on anything measurable, which is the same thing) over a
century ago,

... yes,
there is precedent for calling "ether", "space", an error which has been
repeated countless times, and you supply absolute evidence of.

Regards,
JS
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless