Tooth Fairy Bullshit

[Huggy Bear]

Huggy,

Joke's on you. Did you ignore Krauss around second '47? The bit where he says empty space is filled? They are using the words 'empty space', but are telling you that the space isn't really empty. The clip also explains why your assertion was wrong, yet you offer it as evidence for your mistaken claim.

The other thing going on is that they are dumbing it down for the masses. If I asked them for the scientific use of 'empty space' they would reply with something along the lines of an unexcited area in a vacuum state and would in fact concede that the space you are talking about is not empty.

I was polite in an attempt to help you understand something better, but you doubled down by posting a video you also didn't fully nderstand.

*emphasis mine*


 
The space IS empty...

Krauss said the space is filled with electric fields, a field is simply an area where a force is exerted.


Since you took issue with the sugar cube comparison, I'll just go ahead a triple down.

http://www.physics.org/featuredetail.asp?id=41

Imagine squeezing all the space out of an atom. Well, if you did that to all the atoms in all the people in the world, you could indeed fit the entire human race in the volume of a sugar cube.

https://www.scienceabc.com/pure-sciences...-cube.html

What if I told you that the entire human race… yes, all 7.3 billion of us, don’t even require a space as large as your house? What if I told you that the entire human race could actually fit inside a sugar cube?

http://www.iflscience.com/space/you-coul...rspective/

Almost all of ordinary matter (99.9999999% of it) is empty space. If you took out all of the space in our atoms, the entire human race (all 7 billion of us) would fit into the volume of a sugar cube.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcus-cho...ery/8057/0

The entire human race would fit in the volume of a sugar cube
This is because matter is incredibly, mind-boggling empty.

How about you present a source debunking that statement.

---

Context are not important when there is "no difference".  This is a simple concept.  If there is "no difference" then context is irrelevant because "no difference" means they are always "the same", which would be true regardless of context.  I see you're now trying to justify your blanket statement by injecting context, saying "faith in god" and "belief in god" instead of just "faith" and "belief" as you did in the text I originally applied to.  Yes, if you change what you're saying enough after the fact you will eventually make it right.  But that doesn't mean it was right all along.

Again, it took Mister Agenda very little effort to see what I am plainly saying.  It is taking you considerably more effort not to see it.

*emphasis mine*

That is untrue, one word can have completely different (and sometimes opposite) meanings depending on the context.

Faith and belief mean the same thing, that's not saying they are interchangeable, there are proper uses for one over the other.

For instance like: "loaning money in good faith" is simply saying "loaning money with the belief it will be repaid"

Nevertheless in the context you used, the words are interchangeable.