So we need not only thoughts, mathematics, logic, and a well defined language but also the observation, laboratories and other empircal things.
Logic and observation are two different forms of truth seeking, investigating. Each has its special field where it shines. Neither must always have the other, but then people make mistakes so easily that both are required for surety.
I can know, without observation, that certain things do or do not exist in the universe, but I couldn’t tell you where they are at any particular time without observation.
For example. I know that no where in the entire universe is there a square-circle. I can know that with absolute certainty, merely due to logic, no observation is required. And I can also know that no where in the entire universe is there a perfect circle (or actually any defined perfect shape). The proof of that is a little more complicated, but if verified by other people who understand the process of logic and math, 100% certainty can be obtained.
In the case of the OP, I can know with 100% certainty that nothingness is always absolutely impossible, everywhere. I can know that without the slightest observation because it is strictly an issue of pure logic/math. Observations would merely confirm what couldn’t have been mistaken in the first place. But in a case such as this, no observation can confirm or deny anything being proposed.
When I constructed Affectance Ontology, I knew without doubt that each element being proposed absolutely had to exist in the universe, but I didn’t necessarily know where. It was only due to the preponderance of similarities between science’s reports concerning physics and my abstract constructions that it became 90% certain that what I had constructed in abstract was in fact, the reality of physics. Then it became even more certain after a great deal of debating here and other places. At this point, I can’t imagine anyone being able to find any flaw in it (other than my bad wording at times or something that I wrote when I was still trying to get it all figured out).
So a person can begin with pure abstract logic or one can begin with superficial observations. But before long, no matter which way it began, one must try to confirm the results with the other form of investigation if such can actually be done.
Rational Metaphysics:
Definitional Logic + Scientific Methodology + Resolution Debating = Path to certainty.
Only because we contrived definitions for both squares and circles, so yeah, David Hume talked about this centuries ago. Just as we can always prove the “internal” consistency of mathematics, we can prove the validity of deductive statements, because we define everything within those statements (e.g. no such thing as a married bachelor or whatever).
The thing is, how do you rationally define a property like nothingness? When we contrive axioms, we can usually demonstrate its significance (empirically). Like when trigonometry was invented. You won’t find a perfect triangle in nature, you can’t even really draw one (they even tried to make a perfect triangle in space with lasers, only to discover that the curvature of space makes a perfect line impossible), but you can draw an almost perfect triangle and say that for the purposes of our calculations we’re gonna pretend that the lines are perfectly straight. Then you can make statements like the sum of all its internal angles must be 180 degrees.
To liken something like infA/infA = 1 to 3/3 = 1 (or whatever) … is absurd.
A number or a length has real meaning. Numbers have representative value and demonstrated utility, while properties like length have physical meaning that can be observed.
Your statement is analogous to saying Bertrand Russell’s celestial tea pot/Bertrand Russell’s celestial tea pot = 1, thus it must exist (and to say otherwise is like saying A does equal A) 
Obviously you have to establish the existence of Russell’s celestial tea pot independently for your statement to have any meaning.
I’m sorry … but this is just ridiculous.
Easily.
Existence is qualified by the property of Affect. If something has absolutely no affect upon anything whatsoever, that thing does not exist. And anything that actually does have real affect upon anything does exist. With that in mind, the state of “nothingness” is a state wherein there is no affecting at all: “Absolute Zero Affectance”.
The OP is actually calculating the possibility of ever having absolutely zero affectance. And that possibility is absolutely zero, as pointed out in the OP.
Well, those aren’t “axioms” actually. Those would be ontological elements, which are merely chosen and defined with the hopes of them being useful in some way of thinking. They are not proposed truths, merely abstract ontological constructs, much like an invented language.
Well, I’m afraid that is not at all absurd. By definition infA/infA is exactly equal to one for the exact same reason that 3/3 is exactly equal to one. Realize that the term “infA” is exactly defined. It is not referencing the ambiguous term “infinity”, but rather a very specific infinite series.
Emmm… no. “InfA/infA” has nothing to do with physical objects (Russell’s celestial tea pot), but rather abstract unlimited quantities. And because they are identical, by definition, they divide into each other exactly once, thus " = 1". You can add 2+2 without having to worry about there being any actual object associated with “2”. You get 4 of whatever.
A / A = 1
Pi / Pi = 1
[1+1+1+ … +1] / [1+1+1+ … +1] = 1
Adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing infinite series is a common understanding in mathematics. The trick is that you have to ensure that the series are exactly defined.
So far, your objections have been.
An infinite series is a definable property. It’s your postulate that dividing something by itself proves the existence of nothingness which is absurd.
But then I guess all those physicists (pondering what might exist beyond our universe, or whether our universe is all that exists) should just read your argument and find another job (duh)
An infinite series is not a “property”, not that such is relevant.
Well, that probably would be absurd, but I don’t see where I have postulated that. Exactly where did I imply it?
…typical young minded religionist (“Dim smaht. Ewe dumb”).
Try making an actual argument, rather than assertions … just for a change. Philosophy is good for that sort of thing.
Yup … just a young minded religionist, urrrrr
So no answer to that one either? Merely blind accusations? 
Ummm, because I love Foucault so much, I do try my best to listen to crazy people …
It’s unpleasant to see people who obviously have intelligence not using it. It reminds me of the math games posted here. People can be very clever at coming up with seriously intriguing puzzles, yet hardly ever very good at resolving them.
It is pretty obvious that you could present a more serious challenge if you bothered to try (not that you could ever actually win such contests on this subject).
Its just a matter of logic and common sense. The moon is falling into the Earth; the Earth is falling into the sun; satellites are falling to Earth; so why wouldn’t electrons be falling into neutrons (black holes)? What else is keeping the rotation of the electron in a circular holding pattern? Don’t tell me, you believe in a mysterious pulling action at a distance? The universe doesn’t do magic. It only does logic.
[/quote]
A limited mindset is a religious mindset. Eternal is used extensively by religious persons. I can’t remember reading a scientific paper which had the word ‘eternal’ included.
Well, no. Common sense would tell you that all of those scientists are far more probably right than you, even if it is you saying it.
Because the mass of an electron is not sufficient for the gravity effect that all of your other examples reflect. Gravitational effect, whether pulling, pushing, or whatever are not sufficient to produce the behavior of electrons.
Obviously you don’t read the links that I provide (nor much of anything else it seems). I KNOW there is no pulling nor pushing for reasons that I have expressed in those links that you didn’t read (not to mention that I told you directly that I didn’t believe in pushing or pulling). And in at least one of those links, you can find my explanation for why electrons orbit. The mass of the electron actually is involved, but it is involved in preventing the electron from falling into the proton, not in causing a gravitational effect toward the proton. What is called “charge” is what is causing the electron and proton to migrate toward each other.
From what I understand of your theory, the things that we call “charge” is merely “spin”. I asked for some reason to believe that. You seem to think it should be merely assumed. I don’t do assumptions when it comes to physics.
And what, you have seen them use the word “Dasein”, “Liberal”, “Pantheon”, “Existentialism”, “Metaphysics”, and about 10,000 others that they never use in their work? So every liberal is religious else he would be speaking only science words?
Sorry, but that is exactly the trait of a very limited and religious mindset (the religion of Scientism).
That proves that common sense is not very common! 
The mass doesn’t have to be “sufficient” because it is falling into a black hole and thus, any mass will be sufficient.
What you call charge is merely spin energy. Left spin and right spin equals positive charge and negative charge. The term ‘charge’ is another magic term, like pulling, gravity and magnetism. Physics is about getting rid of magic and replacing it with logic, mathematics and geometry.
If you take something that is spinning to the “left” and turn it upside down, isn’t it then spinning to the right?
And how do you account for their observation that protons are 1000 times larger than electrons?
Physics is about both thinking and demonstrating, neither of which you seem to do much very much.
Its short-hand for clockwise and anti-clockwise.
The size of an electron is unknown to all global scientists. So how did you arrive at this conclusion?
All they can measure is the weight of a proton which is 1000 times greater. The weight is greater because its closer to the neutron and has nothing to do with its size. Weight = mass x gravity
Your response had nothing at all to do with my question.
I know that you meant “clockwise” and “counter-”, but are too silly to say it.
Now address my question, please.
Can you spell “sucker”?
The only reason they contest the "classical size of an electron is because it doesn’t fit into Quantum Physics and Relativity ontologies. Lorentz had it right from the start (which I have independently verified:
Or in graph form (from my personal calculations which agree with Lorentz):
In that anime, I display how the size of a monoparticle, such as an electron, necessarily increases with ambient affectance level.
A neutron or proton is not a monoparticle, but a polyparticle which causes it to become huge in comparison.
But I want to know why you believe in “spinning” other than merely wild speculation from someone who obviously knows nothing at all about this subject?
Counter clockwise is American and Anti-clockwise is British. Silly boy! 
The only logical way that the universe can possibly store energy is through spin. When you want to make electricity, what do you do? Answer - You have to spin something. No spin, no electricity (aether flow)
The universe is energy rich. This means, that the universe has more energy than it knows what to do with. The one particle, three states principle applies. Paper, scissors and rock principle of never-ending energy exchange between left spin, right spin and no spin. Infinite fractal dimensions both outwards and inwards. One dimension collapsing into another dimension. A small percentage (4%) gets trapped in a never ending orbit around the no spin, black hole ethons. That’s us, matter.
Why should I believe that?
If not within the universe somewhere, where is the energy supposed to go? How can energy NOT be conserved or stored?
Sorry, but I haven’t spun my cat battery in a LONG time. Batteries, wet or dry, so not need spinning (nor does the static that you get when you rub plastic on glass).
You didn’t answer my simple question:
If you simply turn a left spinning object upside down, wouldn’t it then be right spinning?
You are implying that a positron is merely an upside down electron.
If energy is not in the form of spin, then it is either in the form of heat or light. Heat and light are transient energy forms which are mobile and are not stable. I am referring to stored energy, not transient energy.
How did the electricity get into your battery? First, it had to be created somewhere else. They had to spin a turbine to create the aether flow which sped up the electrons in your battery. Thus, the battery is just the end product of spin energy capture. When you rub plastic on glass it causes the electrons to spin faster, thus, creating and electric charge. Rubbing of one surface against another surface is the basis of all electricity manufacturing.
The universe is made of only one sub-atomic particle which has 3 states. Thus, the positron is just the opposite spin particle to the electron. When two opposite particles are pushed together they stop spinning and produce heat and light as happens when aether approaches the sun. The result being neutron creation.
Your version of “stored energy” is merely “transient energy” spinning, right? So “stored energy” is actually transient energy that merely can’t get free.
The universe can’t be escaped from. Thus energy, regardless of how seeming free it is, can’t ever escape from the whole, but merely from the local.
I knew you were going to say such a retarded thing … just couldn’t pass up taking the chance that you might not.
NATURAL CHEMISTRY!! aka VALENCE!! from ACIDS and METALS!!
Okay, so a positron is merely a electron that has been accidentally turned upside down.