Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Retiring Infinity from science

Websters contains the current use of the word including what the layman has butchered it to.

I had a certain "S" word which had the same problem. The "S" word has a very different use in Australia where I picked it up at ANU. In Australia they even have a large record chain called the "S" word and it even has an upside down "i" in it's logo and are in every state in Australia. In Australia they most often use the "S" word on non human things and hence it causes no offense.

Here is the retailer: (Caution this link contains the "S" word)
http://www.sanity.com.au/

So I am going to say your above Websters definition is every bit as wrong as my "S" word.

In your world you may believe that is all okay but I wouldn't agree to that definition you have butchered the word.

Ethan Seigel uses the word "nothingness" where I tend to use absolute nothing but I don't think you will find any scientist agree with your definition because it leads to confusion

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/08/16/the-physics-of-nothing-the-phi/

Live science also has an interesting article on the issue
http://www.livescience.com/28132-what-is-nothing-physicists-debate.html

You will note how nothing is denoted in Wikipedia under physics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing



That is the issue to me you are using a non technical word to describe something technical and specific but what do you layman care, you use it how you like I guess and offend us all as you like