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.

On Sep 18, 7:35*pm, wrote:
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.

Yes but not printed in a text book. Even Plank had to wait for a few
years
and he was a buddy of Einstein where he saw that Einstein was often in
error
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

On Sep 18, 8:20*pm, John Smith wrote:
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

Now I see where you are getting all this sci-fi. Finally. You mistake
a philosophical, abstract ether with the type of physical ether being
inferred in this thread, i.e. the ether that was banished from normal
scientific thought by Einstein in 1905 after publishing the Special
Theory. Kostro is not a scientist, he is a Philosopher of Science who
longs for the old ether concept (I would suppose to assist in his
understanding of the universe) and who claims Einstein really did
believe in a revised concept of ether after 195 or so...no way. He did
not, as a physicist. As a philosopher, for him anything was possible,
even a unified theory. But there is no ether variable or constant that
must be present in order for the relativity calculations to work. It
is the job of a philosopher to analyse these parameters, real or
imagined, and remind us that those concepts we threw over the fence
decades ago MAY still have validity. Philosophically this is true if
in your mind experiments you think there actually may be a connection
between light and an ether medium. But philosophy does not show up in
the math. Kostro correctly states that Einstein himself did not
completely dismiss this notion but that is far cry from resurrecting
another century of ether theory. Nice try Johnny boy.

wrote:

...
Now I see where you are getting all this sci-fi. Finally. You mistake
a philosophical, abstract ether with the type of physical ether being
inferred in this thread, i.e. the ether that was banished from normal
scientific thought by Einstein in 1905 after publishing the Special
Theory. Kostro is not a scientist, he is a Philosopher of Science who
longs for the old ether concept (I would suppose to assist in his
understanding of the universe) and who claims Einstein really did
believe in a revised concept of ether after 195 or so...no way. He did
not, as a physicist. As a philosopher, for him anything was possible,
even a unified theory. But there is no ether variable or constant that
must be present in order for the relativity calculations to work. It
is the job of a philosopher to analyse these parameters, real or
imagined, and remind us that those concepts we threw over the fence
decades ago MAY still have validity. Philosophically this is true if
in your mind experiments you think there actually may be a connection
between light and an ether medium. But philosophy does not show up in
the math. Kostro correctly states that Einstein himself did not
completely dismiss this notion but that is far cry from resurrecting
another century of ether theory. Nice try Johnny boy.

If there was ever a doubt you were an idiot (and I did attempt to give
you the benefit of the doubt), you have completely dispelled such doubt
there ... sad, really sad ...

Regards,
JS