This isn't really a puzzle as there is no answer but it's generated an interesting line of debate before...

 

 

I have a spherical ball. It is made of plastic and it is hollow. It is also blue.

 

Is it more blue than it is spherical?

This isn't really a puzzle as there is no answer but it's generated an interesting line of debate before...

 

 

I have a spherical ball. It is made of plastic and it is hollow. It is also blue.

 

Is it more blue than it is spherical?

yes, it is more blue than it is spherical. "blue" covers a fairly wide variety of hues, so thats not an exact value. if it looks blue, it meets the exact definition of "blue". however, humans do not have the technology to create perfectly spherical things, "spherical" is a precisely, mathematically, defined thing, which humans are incapable of creating, therefore the ball is not spherical, just close, whereas it IS blue.

 

(this is going by my personal definitions of the two words, the dictionary says spherical is a. Having the shape of a sphere; globular. or b Having a shape *approximating* that of a sphere. i think the dictionary is full of hooey... but maybe there is a reason no one hires me to make dictionaries...)

yes, it is more blue than it is spherical. "blue" covers a fairly wide variety of hues, so thats not an exact value. if it looks blue, it meets the exact definition of "blue". however, humans do not have the technology to create perfectly spherical things, "spherical" is a precisely, mathematically, defined thing, which humans are incapable of creating, therefore the ball is not spherical, just close, whereas it IS blue.

 

(this is going by my personal definitions of the two words, the dictionary says spherical is a. Having the shape of a sphere; globular. or b Having a shape *approximating* that of a sphere. i think the dictionary is full of hooey... but maybe there is a reason no one hires me to make dictionaries...)

Yes, for exactly the same reasons stated by Callipygous.

Yes, for exactly the same reasons stated by Callipygous.

I would say its more spherical, as spherical is defined in precise mathematical terms, whereas the concept of colour is different to everyone. i.e if an alien came about, it would not be seeing the same colour, but it would see the same shape.

I would say its more spherical, as spherical is defined in precise mathematical terms, whereas the concept of colour is different to everyone. i.e if an alien came about, it would not be seeing the same colour, but it would see the same shape.

I would say its more spherical, as spherical is defined in precise mathematical terms, whereas the concept of colour is different to everyone. i.e if an alien came about, it would not be seeing the same colour, but it would see the same shape.

 

if we say something IS blue were saying that it has properties that cause it to reflect light of a certain frequency that we see as blue. that doesnt change, it still reflects that frequency of light. thats like saying its not blue because the aliens would use a different word for it.

I would say its more spherical, as spherical is defined in precise mathematical terms, whereas the concept of colour is different to everyone. i.e if an alien came about, it would not be seeing the same colour, but it would see the same shape.

 

if we say something IS blue were saying that it has properties that cause it to reflect light of a certain frequency that we see as blue. that doesnt change, it still reflects that frequency of light. thats like saying its not blue because the aliens would use a different word for it.

The damn things blue Bloodhound, for all the reasons stated. If the question had been in relation to its roundness rather than its sphericity then it could have been a draw.

 

Reminds me about the ways of describing the earth: sphere, well no. Oblate spheroid? That's better, but it doesn't cover the overlain pear shape related to crustal gravity anomalies. So we wind up with geoid, which sounds authoritative , but doesn't tell us anything.

The damn things blue Bloodhound, for all the reasons stated. If the question had been in relation to its roundness rather than its sphericity then it could have been a draw.

 

Reminds me about the ways of describing the earth: sphere, well no. Oblate spheroid? That's better, but it doesn't cover the overlain pear shape related to crustal gravity anomalies. So we wind up with geoid, which sounds authoritative , but doesn't tell us anything.

god dam......use guys complecate things that arent even complex. its a simple matter of personal perception. as is suggested there is no right or wrong answer just alot of meaningless debate using your so called brainyness.

ps. who ever said the ball was round or "sepherical". rugby balls arn't !!

god dam......use guys complecate things that arent even complex. its a simple matter of personal perception. as is suggested there is no right or wrong answer just alot of meaningless debate using your so called brainyness.

ps. who ever said the ball was round or "sepherical". rugby balls arn't !!

god dam......use guys complecate things that arent even complex. its a simple matter of personal perception. as is suggested there is no right or wrong answer just alot of meaningless debate using your so called brainyness.

ps. who ever said the ball was round or "sepherical". rugby balls arn't !!

 

i would like to remind you that you are on "science forums and debate". you should expect this kind of thing...

 

(and there is a right answer... as i have clearly explained above. "spherical" is not a perception, it can also be verified that the ball is blue, how is it a matter of perception?)

god dam......use guys complecate things that arent even complex. its a simple matter of personal perception. as is suggested there is no right or wrong answer just alot of meaningless debate using your so called brainyness.

ps. who ever said the ball was round or "sepherical". rugby balls arn't !!

 

i would like to remind you that you are on "science forums and debate". you should expect this kind of thing...

 

(and there is a right answer... as i have clearly explained above. "spherical" is not a perception, it can also be verified that the ball is blue, how is it a matter of perception?)

ps. who ever said the ball was round or "sepherical". rugby balls arn't !!

My bad, it is spherical (in every day language).

ps. who ever said the ball was round or "sepherical". rugby balls arn't !!

My bad, it is spherical (in every day language).

What if the ball were in a dark room and you had not previously seen it? Feeling the ball would tell you that it was a sphere but you wouldn't know the colour. At that point could you not say that the ball is definitely more spherical than it is blue?

 

What if you light the room with light containing no blue to reflect, the colour would change but not its shape?

 

Of course if you were to stamp the ball flat it would remain blue.

 

So what should we use to define "most", is it lastability, perception, accuracy or something else?

What if the ball were in a dark room and you had not previously seen it? Feeling the ball would tell you that it was a sphere but you wouldn't know the colour. At that point could you not say that the ball is definitely more spherical than it is blue?

 

What if you light the room with light containing no blue to reflect, the colour would change but not its shape?

 

Of course if you were to stamp the ball flat it would remain blue.

 

So what should we use to define "most", is it lastability, perception, accuracy or something else?

I think bloodhound has a point, blue seems more dependant on variables than spherical, as mossoi stated above in an absence of light you wouldn't describe the ball as blue. Yet if you were to calculate its volume, or circumference mathematically (thought of as a universal language) you would get a value very close, within a very small margin of error, to a measured value. Wheras how could you measure if the ball was blue?

I think bloodhound has a point, blue seems more dependant on variables than spherical, as mossoi stated above in an absence of light you wouldn't describe the ball as blue. Yet if you were to calculate its volume, or circumference mathematically (thought of as a universal language) you would get a value very close, within a very small margin of error, to a measured value. Wheras how could you measure if the ball was blue?

Bloodhound does have a point, but whereas "spherical" is precisely mathematically defined as an adjective, this does not make the ball precisely spherical.

Bloodhound does have a point, but whereas "spherical" is precisely mathematically defined as an adjective, this does not make the ball precisely spherical.

What if the ball were in a dark room and you had not previously seen it? Feeling the ball would tell you that it was a sphere but you wouldn't know the colour. At that point could you not say that the ball is definitely more spherical than it is blue?

 

What if you light the room with light containing no blue to reflect' date=' the colour would change but not its shape?

 

Of course if you were to stamp the ball flat it would remain blue.

 

So what should we use to define "most", is it lastability, perception, accuracy or something else?[/quote']

 

no, you could not say that the ball is definitely more spherical than blue. if you cant see the color you cant DEFINITELY say that it is not that color. a persons lack of knowledge does not change the properties of the ball.

 

if you did that second one, like with red light for instance, the ball would appear black. but the ball still has the characteristic of only reflecting certain frequencies of light. the ball IS blue. once again, making it so a person cant tell it has that characteristic does not mean the characteristic goes away. red light only makes it so that characteristic doesnt come into play.

 

stamping the ball flat actually changes that characteristic of the ball, it is no longer spherical. same goes if you were to somehow dye the plastic.