On 5/31/2011 9:42 PM, Olrik wrote:

...
Huh?
...

Yeah, the particularly dense have a problem here, understanding this,
for some strange reason, and, like I said, it doesn't seem to be taught
in schools, so, let me rephrase:

"Nothing can't hold something."

The logic of that statement is self-explanatory. You can NOT "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!"
(and exemplified with the cube of plant fibers ... although an over
simplification.)

Regards,
JS

On 2011-06-01 01:05, John Smith wrote:
On 5/31/2011 9:42 PM, Olrik wrote:

...
Huh?
...

Yeah, the particularly dense have a problem here,

That would what, 7 billions of us except two usenet kooks?

understanding this,
for some strange reason, and, like I said, it doesn't seem to be taught
in schools, so, let me rephrase:

"Nothing can't hold something."

The logic of that statement is self-explanatory. You can NOT "put"
something into nothing because there would be no "space" to "put" it into!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation

On 5/31/2011 10:12 PM, Olrik wrote:
On 2011-06-01 01:05, John Smith wrote:
On 5/31/2011 9:42 PM, Olrik wrote:

...
Huh?
...

Yeah, the particularly dense have a problem here,

That would what, 7 billions of us except two usenet kooks?

understanding this,
for some strange reason, and, like I said, it doesn't seem to be taught
in schools, so, let me rephrase:

"Nothing can't hold something."

The logic of that statement is self-explanatory. You can NOT "put"
something into nothing because there would be no "space" to "put" it
into!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation


Think about it, you may, eventually, catch on ... or not ...

Regards,
JS

On 2011-06-01 01:13, John Smith wrote:
On 5/31/2011 10:12 PM, Olrik wrote:
On 2011-06-01 01:05, John Smith wrote:
On 5/31/2011 9:42 PM, Olrik wrote:

...
Huh?
...

Yeah, the particularly dense have a problem here,

That would what, 7 billions of us except two usenet kooks?

understanding this,
for some strange reason, and, like I said, it doesn't seem to be taught
in schools, so, let me rephrase:

"Nothing can't hold something."

The logic of that statement is self-explanatory. You can NOT "put"
something into nothing because there would be no "space" to "put" it
into!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation


Think about it, you may, eventually, catch on ... or not ...

It doesn't matter what you or me "think about it".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation

Or try to explain how satellite TV is distributed.

Regards,
JS

On 5/31/2011 10:18 PM, Olrik wrote:
On 2011-06-01 01:13, John Smith wrote:
On 5/31/2011 10:12 PM, Olrik wrote:
On 2011-06-01 01:05, John Smith wrote:
On 5/31/2011 9:42 PM, Olrik wrote:

...
Huh?
...

Yeah, the particularly dense have a problem here,

That would what, 7 billions of us except two usenet kooks?

understanding this,
for some strange reason, and, like I said, it doesn't seem to be taught
in schools, so, let me rephrase:

"Nothing can't hold something."

The logic of that statement is self-explanatory. You can NOT "put"
something into nothing because there would be no "space" to "put" it
into!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation


Think about it, you may, eventually, catch on ... or not ...

It doesn't matter what you or me "think about it".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation

Or try to explain how satellite TV is distributed.

Regards,
JS



That is off on a tangent of what post I originally comment to ...

We were talking about "empty" being an impossible concept ...
"impossible" in the fact that we simply have no physical examples of
such existing ... it is only a concept at this time.

So far as we know, there has always been "something", even before the
matter of what we can see, feel and hear existed ...

Regards,
JS

On 2011-06-01 01:22, John Smith wrote:
On 5/31/2011 10:18 PM, Olrik wrote:
On 2011-06-01 01:13, John Smith wrote:
On 5/31/2011 10:12 PM, Olrik wrote:
On 2011-06-01 01:05, John Smith wrote:
On 5/31/2011 9:42 PM, Olrik wrote:

...
Huh?
...

Yeah, the particularly dense have a problem here,

That would what, 7 billions of us except two usenet kooks?

understanding this,
for some strange reason, and, like I said, it doesn't seem to be
taught
in schools, so, let me rephrase:

"Nothing can't hold something."

The logic of that statement is self-explanatory. You can NOT "put"
something into nothing because there would be no "space" to "put" it
into!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation


Think about it, you may, eventually, catch on ... or not ...

It doesn't matter what you or me "think about it".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation

Or try to explain how satellite TV is distributed.

Regards,
JS



That is off on a tangent of what post I originally comment to ...

We were talking about "empty" being an impossible concept ...
"impossible" in the fact that we simply have no physical examples of
such existing ... it is only a concept at this time.

So far as we know, there has always been "something", even before the
matter of what we can see, feel and hear existed ...

Have a nice life.

Regards,
JS