wrote:
The discussion on the makeup of the structure was never closed. You
put the cart in front of the horse.

The makeup of the structure is irrelevant to this
discussion. Since there is a structure (which is
something) it cannot possibly be nothing.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Sep 17, 7:31*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
The discussion on the makeup of the structure was never closed. You
put the cart in front of the horse.

The makeup of the structure is irrelevant to this
discussion. Since there is a structure (which is
something) it cannot possibly be nothing.
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

True under some abstract (non-physical) conditions. For example, the
"structure" could be a mere figment of your imagination which is
something, an abstraction, a figment. However, it is not something
which measureable TEM waves could use as an aether for propagation.
The answer lies in the fact that, if TEM waves are present, then
something (the TEM WAVE itself) is present where nothing existed
before. TEM waves need only by their very presence propagagate through
nothing. This does not suggest I am stating that they travel outside
the boundaries of the Universe which you believe is the only locus
where nothing exists, and to which I disagree since empty space is
also "nothing" as defined in this universe. Empty space,in locii where
the exotic paricles do not exist, needs no structure. It is that
without structure.

wrote:
... I disagree since empty space is
also "nothing" as defined in this universe. Empty space,in locii where
the exotic paricles do not exist, needs no structure. It is that
without structure.

You need to update your knowledge to the 21st century.
"Empty" space has been proved not to be empty and
therefore not "nothing".
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Sep 17, 6:01*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
... I disagree since empty space is
also "nothing" as defined in this universe. Empty space,in locii where
the exotic paricles do not exist, needs no structure. It is that
without structure.

You need to update your knowledge to the 21st century.
"Empty" space has been proved not to be empty and
therefore not "nothing".
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

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.

wrote:
On Sep 17, 6:01 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
... I disagree since empty space is
also "nothing" as defined in this universe. Empty space,in locii where
the exotic paricles do not exist, needs no structure. It is that
without structure.
You need to update your knowledge to the 21st century.
"Empty" space has been proved not to be empty and
therefore not "nothing".
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

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.

I think what he means and hasn't said is "Nothing can be truly empty".
Period. No matter what you do.

Although extracting energy through the Casimir effect can cause a very
small space to have lower that normal foam in it. It's due to very
short spacing constraining the longest wavelength allowed in between the
plates. Which is not really different than the normal ways things
temporarily can change entropy in a volume.

tom
K0TAR

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

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.

wrote:
[stuff, stuff, and a lot more stuff]

Yep, I think you are on the right path ...

To summarize Cecil:

"Yep, even the astronaut floating in space cannot empty his bucket!
And, worse than that, no one has ever even seen an empty bucket!
Speculations to what an empty bucket would look like should be able to
be done, however."

If you are out there, Cecil, feel free to correct me ... ;-)

Regards,
JS

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

wrote:
[ ... ]

You simply take up too much effort on a very small point. Read this:

http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep3-24.htm

If that doesn't do it for you, or whets your appetite, try this book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=_24EAAAACAAJ&dq=ether

Regards,
JS