Tesseract

Thankyou I needed that. Cheers.

From my post or the flash?

This is a terrible question attempting to be a paradox.

I was writing while you posted this. But if afraid we've run into another definition problem. Sphereical means (for the last time) : Having the shape of a sphere; globular. Having a shape approximating that of a sphere It being a ball dosnt make it a sphere (nor is that the question) it only makes it spherical (which it is because it says so in the question as "ball")

Your changing the question again. Its: I have a ball. It is made of plastic and it is hollow. It is also blue. Is it more blue than it is spherical? The ball is just as it is with no external variables. Just a ball. Light dosnt even matter were talking about the ball's characteristics not how it is percieved in different lighting conditions. Changing the question changes the answer. It says the answer in the first line anyway: I have a ball. It is made of plastic and it is hollow. It is also blue. It dosnt say anything about observers lighting or "if we look at it through a little window." We only know the information given. A blue ball. Ball: sphereical. If it wasnt sphereical it wouldnt be a ball. Blue: having the characteristics to reflect blue light. As long as it reflects blue light the ball is blue. Its not important or prudent if the ball looks different under certain conditions. The ball has not phisically changed, only the perception of the ball. The ball cannot change its characteristics, the photons dont reflect any differently off of the atoms in the ball. The problem is with our eyes. "blue" can only be perceived in the presence of light" So your saying that if we dont look at the ball it dosnt exist? If it cannot be percieved when its dark why could one still touch it? Remember the meaning of percieved is through any of the senses not just sight.

The funniset thing I have seen all day. Anyone with urges will learn that ITS ALWAYS BETTER TO POST IN AN EXISTING THREAD THAN TO START A NEW ONE!!!

What requests of clarification? If you believed what you are writing this argument would have ended along time ago. PM him already! Quite hypocritical.

and where do you work...?

"If you want to be meticulous to other people you must first be meticulous to yourself first."-proverb (paraphrased)

theres a nice section on hacking aswell. http://www.planethack.org/public/books/Hacking/

neither

LOL this is the best, a reply to this one:

I liked these posts: Lance than Mokele than Lance again

please dont compare me to him

Allow me. 10... 9... 8... 7... 6... 5... 4... 3... 2... 1... hmm...

Only as real as you want it to be. I use Ulead PhotoImpact 10.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4395 "running water" lol

take a look: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/search.php?searchid=99485

remember all his mars pictures...lol all the threads were closed

neither is the bible