[N0B0DY]

I can see your point about using absolute as an adjective, Dave. Very clearly actually, because when I usually use the term it pertains to non-existence.

Though it could also be used to separate substrata, like a room for example being flooded with water (electromagnetic radiation) would have the room itself as its substratum or more specifically the air in the room. I know you meant that the radiation would pertain more to a state of the water, but I just wanted to give an example of more refined layers that have been proposed to me in the past. Layers that can be refined - H2O, O, H... - where we could say that hydrogen exists within all atoms. Further, could less massive atoms exist within hydrogen? Why not?

Even if that were possible, the bottom line is that there has to be a motionless medium for any sensory motion to be possible. Otherwise, if someone were to stand in front of you and attempt to push you, you would move before you were even touched. And my point here, Dave, is relatively simple: if every point in space must be motionless, all observations of motion must be incremental re-creations. Wavelengths included, must be recreated measurements between two abstract points. Abstract, because the points must be non-dimensional.

I couldn't tell by your response, though, if the EM-filled void you mentioned is the same as the void in your thread title. I'm assuming they are different.

Just one more thing, if I may, the point you made about the "short increment of time" can express my point even clearer actually. If short-lived particles are a necessary factor of longer-living particles, is it fair to say that no particles is a necessay factor in creating time-dependent particles? Or, put another way, what would be a fair estimate of the shortest-living particles?