In the deep ocean, some fish have evolved superpowered vision

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

M theory (the meta-superstring theory), posits 10 dimensions of space nad one of time. But the 'extra' dimensions are curled up at around the Planck length, so are not directly detectable.

If you enjoyed 'Flatland', you'll enjoy 'Flatterland' by Ian Stewart, it's 'Like Flatland, Only More So'.

Click to expand...

lol. I'm adding this quote to my journal.

frogoon234 said:

lol. I'm adding this quote to my journal.

Click to expand...

It's the subtitle of the book

essentialsaltes said:

@Kenny'sID - would you care to answer the question?

Click to expand...

Actually, I didn't come back here because I figured it would be business as usual with no proof, just more excuses, but when you all come up with something, let me know.

As far as the question, I haven't read it, but I think I case safely assume it's just another excuse. I mean what am I supposed to think I'll get from people who claim such an outlandish thing as "Science proves nothing"?

Kenny'sID said:

Actually, I didn't come back here because I figured it would be business as usual with no proof, just more excuses, but when you all come up with something, let me know.

Click to expand...

You mean like all the excuses you keep using to avoid having to learn anything? Excuses like those?

Really Kenny, you should be honest with yourself. The only reason you appear to be here is for so you can keep declaring imaginary internet victories so you can feel better about what you believe. There appears to be no other reason you come to this forum.

Kenny'sID said:

I mean what am I supposed to think I'll get from people who claim such an outlandish thing as "Science proves nothing"?

Click to expand...

Let's consider that for a moment. Scientists make the declaration that science is not in the business of proof. That's not just one or two scientists, or the scientists posting on this forum, it's a general position in the field. Yet you feel that they don't know what they are talking about. It seems an odd position to take that the very people trained in and active in a field would be unaware of one of its fundamentals. What makes you think that?

Please note, I shall take one of your traditionally evasive arguments as a concession that you have no rational reason other than protecting your own beliefs. That is quite understandable, but doing it with such regularity does raises ethical questions.