Tesseract

So compressed the atoms would fuse.

Ill figure it out.

Ill figure it out.

It dosnt make any predictions that could one day disprove it, thats a characteristic of a theory. Thus its not a theory just a "a bundle of competing hypotheses for a protoscience". here are theory characteristics: 1. existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense, 2. is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct, 3. has survived many critical real world tests that could have proven it false, 4. makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory, and 5. is the best known explanation, in the sense of Occam's Razor, of the infinite variety of alternative explanations for the same data.

It dosnt make any predictions that could one day disprove it, thats a characteristic of a theory. Thus its not a theory just a "a bundle of competing hypotheses for a protoscience". here are theory characteristics: 1. existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense, 2. is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct, 3. has survived many critical real world tests that could have proven it false, 4. makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory, and 5. is the best known explanation, in the sense of Occam's Razor, of the infinite variety of alternative explanations for the same data.

So compressed it would melt.

So compressed it would melt.

I say the photo of the guy was made in the 80's.

I say the photo of the guy was made in the 80's.

Because thats where it was created.

Because thats where it was created.

Who said I believe it I just thought it was funny.

Who said I believe it I just thought it was funny.

Actually Bloodhound was right. We have to answer this false question mathematically. It is more sherical that blue. Why: 1)The spectrum off blue is 420-490 nanometers, thats a 70nm difference. That means there is a 16.66% statistical uncertainty, of whether it is blue. 2)The ball being shperical means that it is approximately (95%) like a sphere. Which means there is a 5% statistical uncertainty. 3)5% is better than 16.66%, so if you had 100 people observe the ball, 5% would say it is not spherical, and 16.66% would say that it is not blue.

Actually Bloodhound was right. We have to answer this false question mathematically. It is more sherical that blue. Why: 1)The spectrum off blue is 420-490 nanometers, thats a 70nm difference. That means there is a 16.66% statistical uncertainty, of whether it is blue. 2)The ball being shperical means that it is approximately (95%) like a sphere. Which means there is a 5% statistical uncertainty. 3)5% is better than 16.66%, so if you had 100 people observe the ball, 5% would say it is not spherical, and 16.66% would say that it is not blue.

All I said is that I want to learn Russian. Im not very good as of yet.

All I said is that I want to learn Russian. Im not very good as of yet.

The link wasnt working that I posted.

The link wasnt working that I posted.

This is you: http://www.caver.net/other/scorpion.jpg

This is you: http://www.caver.net/other/scorpion.jpg

Its is a sphere because of its properties, we see it as a sphere becasue of the way we percieve it. Either way its still a sphere and if we dont do anything to it, it cant be anymore spherical. The same with blueness. But if we change the lighting or flatten it that would change the question so it would change the answer.

Its is a sphere because of its properties, we see it as a sphere becasue of the way we percieve it. Either way its still a sphere and if we dont do anything to it, it cant be anymore spherical. The same with blueness. But if we change the lighting or flatten it that would change the question so it would change the answer.