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

On 5/31/2011 10:26 PM, Olrik wrote:
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



I warned you, the particularly dense have a great problem in the
comprehension of the reality of things ...

The electrons cannot move, if they have "nothing" to move through ...
logic dictates, they cannot even have an existence if they have
"nothing" to exist in.

Put simply, you cannot lay something on a table, unless you first have
the table to lay it upon ... and so it is with matter, it must have a
platform to exist/travel in ...

Thanks, you have a great one too!

Regards,
JS

On 2011-06-01 01:32, John Smith wrote:
On 5/31/2011 10:26 PM, Olrik wrote:
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



I warned you, the particularly dense have a great problem in the
comprehension of the reality of things ...

Indeed. Look, you seem to be a nice sport.

I don't know what you have against the propagation of EM waves in a
vacuum. Is it ideological? Philosophical? Religious?

Most kooks that espoused your views have the decency to invent the
"aether" (or ether, if you will), that explains waves propagation in a
"vacuum".

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

(Hint: the way to convince is not to disparage a given theory, but to
actually, positively provide a working alternative theory!)

So: how do satellite TV receive their signals?

Good luck for that Nobel prize!

On Jun 1, 1:32*am, John Smith wrote:
On 5/31/2011 10:26 PM, Olrik wrote:





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

I warned you, the particularly dense have a great problem in the
comprehension of the reality of things ...

The electrons cannot move, if they have "nothing" to move through ...
logic dictates, they cannot even have an existence if they have
"nothing" to exist in.

Put simply, you cannot lay something on a table, unless you first have
the table to lay it upon ... and so it is with matter, it must have a
platform to exist/travel in ...

Thanks, you have a great one too!

Regards,
JS- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And how do you explain RF coming from the outer space ? ? ?

On 5/31/2011 10:42 PM, Olrik wrote:
On 2011-06-01 01:32, John Smith wrote:
On 5/31/2011 10:26 PM, Olrik wrote:
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



I warned you, the particularly dense have a great problem in the
comprehension of the reality of things ...

Indeed. Look, you seem to be a nice sport.

I don't know what you have against the propagation of EM waves in a
vacuum. Is it ideological? Philosophical? Religious?


I don't even see where that question applies! It is you who has a
religious belief in the imaginary concept of "nothing", and, although
you do refer to it as "a vacuum", you assign it the concept of
"nothing." The electrons "transversing the vacuum" are actually being
conducted by the either!

Most kooks that espoused your views have the decency to invent the
"aether" (or ether, if you will), that explains waves propagation in a
"vacuum".


The "electron wave theory" MUST have a medium, I don't care if you are
talking about "shooting bullets" though "something" or having waves of
some frequency transversing a medium, both share the dependence of
having to have "something" to travel in.

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


Yes, but I think Einsteins gravitational either is, probably, a bit more
towards correct ... but then, at this time, we don't even have a
"bottle" which will hold the stuff! It travels though the spaces of the
atoms of our matter as easily as the wind passes though a wire screen!
If we can't even "hold a sample" of it, let alone "see" it or "touch"
it, how are we even to begin to study the fabric of space (your vacuum?)

(Hint: the way to convince is not to disparage a given theory, but to
actually, positively provide a working alternative theory!)

So: how do satellite TV receive their signals?


The "particles" composing the either (or waves generated within) seem to
interact with antennas made from our matter, usually of metal
construction. At this time, the only model I can conceptionalize is
that of a bullet being shot from a gun (or an emitted electron), or a
wave transversing a pond -- so, at this time, I must accept that the
either is transversed in a logical and similar manner, and imitating
what I can realize/know/see/model/etc. ... such as Einsteins example
(model) of using a bowling ball and a mattress to conceptualize the
warping of gravity on space/time.

Good luck for that Nobel prize!

As you pointed out, with the theory of the Luminiferous Aether (or,
Einsteins' gravitational either) man has long been aware of the
existence of it -- they don't give nobel prizes for "rediscovering"
something ... but, thanks for the support!

Regards,
JS