Callipygous

yes... and all substance has color... im pretty sure i said that already.

blue doesnt mean it is CURRENTLY reflecting blue light. thats how. blue means if you were to shine a white light on it only the blue would come back. if it is in a completely lightless environment it would still be a blue object because it has the properties of reflecting only blue light. whats the substance? any substance, it doesnt matter... in this case a ball.

can you distinguish distilled water from air? it has SOME color, what you would call it i dont know, very light grey? be careful not to turn this into an idiotfest. it has nothing to do with the light source. blue means it only reflects blue light. perception does not change the physical properties of things, but you dont know the physical properties of things. you only know your perception. if you dont want to get into, dont continue down that line.

yes, color exists due to matter, so does shape. nothing with shape is colorless, nothing with color is shapeless. neither is without matter. and yes, i did poo-poo that idea, because its complete hogwash. first of all, because there is no such thing as a complete absince of light, and therefore of the color blue. and second, because something being blue means that it reflects only blue light, not that it is currently reflecting blue light. not to mention that shape is also a perception, and as such, may appear different with different "receptors". (if we wanna get into the "what if i see it different" crap : P )

Yup. "hey fred, i see some blue over there!" "gee tom, what shape is it in?" "why, its a sphere fred, thanks for asking" the idea that sphericity is more important is only for human perception. shape makes more of a difference for us, that doenst mean its universally more important.

right, so since the only thing we can debate is how the definitions work out in the real world, you cant assume that the definition was entirely accurate for one property but then question it when considering the other. you have to either assume the definitions are correct for both, in which case both properties are entirely accurate and it is neither more blue nor more spherical, or you have to assume both of them are flawed and that the original defintions can't be relied on as a source of evidence.

you cant argue it for one factor but not the other. the fact is, the OP said it was spherical AND blue. so if you want to judge based on exactly what the OP said, there is no discussion, they are equal. you cant go by the OPs defintion for one of the properties but ignore it for the other. the last three pages of discussion are all based on questioning whether the OPs definitions work in the real world, not debating the question based on his definitions.

what Sayo said, plus, everything is still moving at that point from what I understand of string theory.

Thanks! : )

people have posted 40 over and over again now... can someone, anyone, at least try to post an explaination?? we get it, its 40... but WHY? if there were anything about them only ringing the bell once for each hat or something like that i would understand, but there isnt.

viewing it positive is the key. being negative is a downward spiral. the client shows up late, if you view it poorly, and then you call the restraunt and find out their booked the odds of you viewing that event positively are slim, you see it as one more thing on the list of bad. now its just two bad things in a row. if you had started positive with the client then you have the possibility of positive/negative, breaking even, or viewing both positive and coming out ahead.

hahahaha.... good times.

i hate ones like 4... that could be any number of things.

in seven is that last line saying that nothing that is said is true or that not all the stuff is true? think i got a couple more, still working on 4, 5, 7 and 10

sorry, i was in a bad mood earlier. not that that changes the fact that i disagree, just the way i would have chosen to present it.

darkness doesnt refer to electromagnetic radiation, it refers to visible light. if you cant process it its not visible light. for the love of god, stop arguing the words. yes, "see" requires that there is something to see, but the whole point here is that "seeing" darkness means not seeing anything. get over it. once again, stop arguing the words. this isnt an english discussion.

darkness is your eyes not recieving input. when your monitor is black that doesnt mean its projecting blackness onto the screen, its projecting nothing on the screen. your right that there is always some electromagnetic radiation, but that just means no one has ever seen complete darkness. thats like saying its never quiet because there is always vibration. yeah, there is always noise, but when were talking about it we can only refer to what we can sense.

i got 2, 3, 6 and 9. still working on the others : P

its a particle, a physical thing, but it isnt matter? O.o

I have always heard light discribed as being both energy and matter. if its matter, it has to have mass. but according to E=MC^2, nothing with mass can reach the speed of light. so how can light reach light speed? my understanding of this stuff is limited, so sorry if im missing something important.