I wouldn't say that Einstein disproved "nothingness", i would say instead that he produced a theory that conveniently eliminates the possibility of "nothingness". What about the absence of ether? What is ether composed of? Is it composed of particles? What about the gaps between these particles, what are they composed of? Is the existence of ether verifiable in lab? I don't know, it seems like we're running a loop here.
I think physicists would save themselves alot of trouble if they adopted the view that vaccum really is nothing, and that the body perceives nothing as something.

I think, life at its most meaninglessness would be one where consciousness is explained as a property of a physical system, like a recursive one. We would say, "any system that has a recursive loop exhibits the property we call consciousness, we can build a conscious system, and turn it on and off as we please."
Yet, even if we were such a system, we would still wake, go to school, and worry about our social stance.
At a physical level nothing is meaningful, but we live in a social perspective that shields us from any underlying meaninglessness.

I think one of the reasons we have so much trouble in identifying how the universe works or how it was created is because we aren't always completely aware of how the human body perceives things.
It's like the question of whether "nothingness" can really exist. I might say that even vaccum isn't really "nothing" because it's black and it can have dimensions. But this is because the human body perceives absence of matter/energy as being black, implying that it is something, when, at a physical level, it really is nothing.

I really don't understand what physicists mean when they speak of space as being something, or being bentable, or tearable, or when they consider a 4th, 5th...11th dimension.

Nice...

Nothing like the occasional hacking or domain problem to get you guys to update the site.