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, 7:59*pm, John Smith wrote:
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

I guess the word "empty" has no meaning anymore. Why, an astronaut in
space cannot even carry an empty bucket. I'm sure you would agree that
we should just strike the word from the Webster and Oxford
dictionaries because you, who are immersed in advanced scientific
thought, are convinced that a state of emptiness anywhere in the
universe is impossible. I am truly humbled by your profound reasoning
which I know would not be possible without that little extra touch of
senility that releases you from the confining boundaries of logic. I
assume that the absence of a correction by Mr. Cecil will indicate his
agreement with your tripe. I might also mention that you need not
reach out to Mr. Cecil to validate your bizzare pronouncements. Get
some self-confidence in your statements Johhny, grow a spine!

wrote:

...
I guess the word "empty" has no meaning anymore. Why, an astronaut in
space cannot even carry an empty bucket. I'm sure you would agree that
we should just strike the word from the Webster and Oxford
dictionaries because you, who are immersed in advanced scientific
thought, are convinced that a state of emptiness anywhere in the
universe is impossible. I am truly humbled by your profound reasoning
which I know would not be possible without that little extra touch of
senility that releases you from the confining boundaries of logic. I
assume that the absence of a correction by Mr. Cecil will indicate his
agreement with your tripe. I might also mention that you need not
reach out to Mr. Cecil to validate your bizzare pronouncements. Get
some self-confidence in your statements Johhny, grow a spine!

Actually, don't go out of your way. And, all you are required to do is
be coherent and realistic ... and no, "empty" for the general population
can go forward as it has/is/and-will-do ... the scientific community
already knows "empty" has multiple definitions.

Frankly, I don't know how you can misinterpret even the most minor
points of human decency ... to place words in anothers' mouth, without
asking permission, is just considered rude and crude ... but then, that
may just be indicative of ones background, schooling and place of
residence ...

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

Art Unwin wrote:

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.

Einstein's paper on special relativity was published in 1905.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.