Thread:SomeoneYouUsedToKnow/@comment-27425734-20170710040322

SomeoneYouUsedToKnow wrote: "Not too science-savvy" is irrelevant. It doesn't even need much thinking to know what would happen: You'd kill someone like that. Just to clarify, I should have worded that better. I was actually referring to my my lack of understanding on the mechanics of intangibility in general. I assumed that there was some basic scientific principles that I didn't understand which judging from the first example you provided is true to a degree, and not "irrelevant" as you put it. I didn't understand a word of the first part of your in-depth explanation (i.e. the example of the closed box with water), so I just looked through the rest of yours and Ray's conversation and summed up that intangibility wasn't possible.

In short, it is important for someone to understand at least the basics of science, or at least mathematics - neither of which are my strong suit - to get the first part of your explanation.

I'm posting this to your message wall, so that it doesn't eat up thread space. You might think that what you were talking about is common sense, but it's not that way for everyone. Some people are just not capable of thinking three-dimensionally while applying scientific and mathematic principles.  