On 5/31/2011 11:59 PM, Mike Painter wrote:
John Smith wrote:
On 5/31/2011 9:42 PM, Olrik wrote:

...
Huh?
...

Yeah, the particularly dense have a problem here, let me rephrase:

"Nothing can't hold something."

The logic of that statement is self-explanatory. You can "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!"
Which ignores the "truely empty box" part of your comment.

As for "aether". I suspect you are confusing it with "ether" and you should
stop smelling it.



I can give you a true example of "nothing."

You have a small box, the inside dimension of 1x1x1 inches. Into this
box, you place a 1x1x1 inch O.D. cube.

Now you have an example of "nothing." As, there is "nothing" between
the outside of the cube and the inside of the box -- and, you don't have
any possibility of movement of the cube within the box!

And, the reason is simple, you can't move "something" into "nothing!"

This is what "nothing" is.

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:
On 5/31/2011 11:59 PM, Mike Painter wrote:
John Smith wrote:
On 5/31/2011 9:42 PM, Olrik wrote:

...
Huh?
...

Yeah, the particularly dense have a problem here, let me rephrase:

"Nothing can't hold something."

The logic of that statement is self-explanatory. You can "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!"
Which ignores the "truely empty box" part of your comment.

As for "aether". I suspect you are confusing it with "ether" and you
should stop smelling it.



I can give you a true example of "nothing."

You have a small box, the inside dimension of 1x1x1 inches. Into this
box, you place a 1x1x1 inch O.D. cube.

Now you have an example of "nothing." As, there is "nothing" between
the outside of the cube and the inside of the box -- and, you don't
have any possibility of movement of the cube within the box!

And, the reason is simple, you can't move "something" into "nothing!"

This is what "nothing" is.

Regards,
JS

Weak. You can't build such a device. If you could then you could not place
one box into the other and have it touch bottom as the air would be
compressed and have no means of escape.

So consider it as a thought experiment and ignore all of modern physics.
Then explain how you would tell the difference between an infinite number of
such boxes and nothing.

When you are done tell us how this nothing precludes your idea of an
"aether"

On 6/1/2011 11:23 AM, Mike Painter wrote:

...
Weak. You can't build such a device. If you could then you could not place
one box into the other and have it touch bottom as the air would be
compressed and have no means of escape.

So consider it as a thought experiment and ignore all of modern physics.
Then explain how you would tell the difference between an infinite number of
such boxes and nothing.

When you are done tell us how this nothing precludes your idea of an
"aether"



ROFLOL ... Go take a physics class, most everything you state, above, is
in error ... correct this or you can go no further!

Regards,
JS

You can't dig a hole either.

Out of the way, R&O!
cuhulin

On 6/1/2011 1:57 PM, wrote:
You can't dig a hole either.

Out of the way, R&O!
cuhulin


I can remember digging holes when I was an apprentice construction
worker. Indeed, I got all the "****-jobs!" Thank gawd that was over 40
years ago, had to attend college at the same time, was a real killer!

I don't do that anymore ... haven't in about 40 years ...

Regards,
JS

On 6/1/2011 11:23 AM, Mike Painter wrote:
John Smith wrote:
On 5/31/2011 11:59 PM, Mike Painter wrote:
John Smith wrote:
On 5/31/2011 9:42 PM, Olrik wrote:

...
Huh?
...

Yeah, the particularly dense have a problem here, let me rephrase:

"Nothing can't hold something."

The logic of that statement is self-explanatory. You can "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!"
Which ignores the "truely empty box" part of your comment.

As for "aether". I suspect you are confusing it with "ether" and you
should stop smelling it.



I can give you a true example of "nothing."

You have a small box, the inside dimension of 1x1x1 inches. Into this
box, you place a 1x1x1 inch O.D. cube.

Now you have an example of "nothing." As, there is "nothing" between
the outside of the cube and the inside of the box -- and, you don't
have any possibility of movement of the cube within the box!

And, the reason is simple, you can't move "something" into "nothing!"

This is what "nothing" is.

Regards,
JS

Weak. You can't build such a device. If you could then you could not place
one box into the other and have it touch bottom as the air would be
compressed and have no means of escape.

The only thing "weak" about that statement, is the mind which
thought-it/believes-it! You can "cast" the block in the box out of a
liquid which solidified. You can first insert the block into just the
four assembled side of the box, then attach the top and the bottom,
etc., etc.

Again, you don't give me an example of anything but your VERY limited
powers of reason and logic!


So consider it as a thought experiment and ignore all of modern physics.
Then explain how you would tell the difference between an infinite number of
such boxes and nothing.

Why would I now go into a tangent, off the subject discussed, so you can
baffle us with bull****? Because, you sure as hell ain't going to be
dazzling us with your brilliance!


When you are done tell us how this nothing precludes your idea of an
"aether"


Since the ether can fit between the atoms of all matter known to us, it
would be impossible to ever be able to create a "space" devoid of ether.

Once again, you demonstrate your VERY limited powers of logic and reason
.... apparently, you think you accomplish something else?

Regards,
JS

On Jun 1, 12:59*am, John Smith wrote:
On 5/31/2011 11:59 PM, Mike Painter wrote:









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

...
Huh?
...

Yeah, the particularly dense have a problem here, let me rephrase:

"Nothing can't hold something."

The logic of that statement is self-explanatory. *You can "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!"
Which ignores the "truely empty box" part of your comment.

As for "aether". I suspect you are confusing it with "ether" and you should
stop smelling it.

I can give you a true example of "nothing."

You have a small box, the inside dimension of 1x1x1 inches. *Into this
box, you place a 1x1x1 inch O.D. cube.

Now you have an example of "nothing." *As, there is "nothing" between
the outside of the cube and the inside of the box -- and, you don't have
any possibility of movement of the cube within the box!

And, the reason is simple, you can't move "something" into "nothing!"

This is what "nothing" is.

Regards,
JS

A lot of very square brains are stuffed into square skulls of the
exact same volume here in Google Groups or Usenet/newsgroups, thus
you've nailed the problem. They've managed to put to much of
something into nothing, or vise versa.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On 6/1/2011 3:34 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

...
A lot of very square brains are stuffed into square skulls of the
exact same volume here in Google Groups or Usenet/newsgroups, thus
you've nailed the problem. They've managed to put to much of
something into nothing, or vise versa.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”


Again, I was commenting on "empty", "space", "nothing", "matter", etc.

Your need to now branch off on, yet, another tangent of what appears is
going to now center on personal attacks, due you your ego suffering
imagined damages, simply takes the context of the matters out of the
discussion, and now leaves another discussion in their place.

Interesting, but like I said, I simply have no comments of any
importance to make on subjects which I have no interest in.

Perhaps such NGs as alt.support.self-esteem, alt.self-improve,
alt.support.self-harm or even alt.recovery.panic-anxiety.self-help would
be much more fitting forums/platforms to your directions?

For your easy diversion into subjects, other than the ones under
immediate discussion, perhaps you could consider starting a newsgroup
such as "alt.support.maintaining-focus?"

Regards,
JS

On Jun 1, 3:52*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 6/1/2011 3:34 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

...
A lot of very square brains are stuffed into square skulls of the
exact same volume here in Google Groups or Usenet/newsgroups, thus
you've nailed the problem. *They've managed to put to much of
something into nothing, or vise versa.

*http://www.wanttoknow.info/
*http://translate.google.com/#
* Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

Again, I was commenting on "empty", "space", "nothing", "matter", etc.

Your need to now branch off on, yet, another tangent of what appears is
going to now center on personal attacks, due you your ego suffering
imagined damages, simply takes the context of the matters out of the
discussion, and now leaves another discussion in their place.

Interesting, but like I said, I simply have no comments of any
importance to make on subjects which I have no interest in.

Perhaps such NGs as alt.support.self-esteem, alt.self-improve,
alt.support.self-harm or even alt.recovery.panic-anxiety.self-help would
be much more fitting forums/platforms to your directions?

For your easy diversion into subjects, other than the ones under
immediate discussion, perhaps you could consider starting a newsgroup
such as "alt.support.maintaining-focus?"

Regards,
JS

You need to make something really big out of nothing is noted.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On 6/1/2011 8:48 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

...
You need to make something really big out of nothing is noted.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

That is your problem, you dismiss the really basic and necessary rules
and laws of science and jump, then, to subjects you are unable to
discuss in a logical and reasoning manner.

Since this now allows you to rant on subjects you know nothing about,
you can make insane guesses, hold insane beliefs, and propose impossible
situations which obey none of the real laws of science and math ... and,
doing all with no sense of how insane it sounds to those who have a
knowledge of all this. Since you don't know any better, you think none
do -- gee, akin to winos giving PhD dissertations on complex matters of
importance!

But hey, if it works for you ... ROFLOL

Regards,
JS