Jump to content


Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.

Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.

If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.

Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
- - - - -

Think about these


  • Please log in to reply
570 replies to this topic

#11 ifollohim

ifollohim

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 24 June 2007 - 09:14 PM

how about this?

if you go back in time and kill the father of the guy who invented the time machine you traveled in what would happen to you?
  • 0

#12 Cipher22

Cipher22

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 25 June 2007 - 06:17 AM

The bullet and armor one is kinda retarded since it is impossible for both of them to exist simultaneously. If the bullet can pierce anything, the armor is not invincible. If the armor is invincible, the bullet cannot pierce any barrier. It is one or the other. Never both.
  • 0

#13 Incognitum

Incognitum

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts

Posted 25 June 2007 - 07:32 AM

#7 is a Steven Wright joke. I asked my chemistry teacher about it and he said, because of relativity, your headlights would turn on, as normal, and the light would come out at twice the speed of light.

However, the question is impossible anyways, because for something to go the speed of light, ALL of it's mass must be converted to energy. The spaceship wouldn't even exist anymore.



What grade of chemistry are you in? And why are you asking a chemistry teacher about a physics problem?

The speed of light is a constant. Light cannot ever travel at twice the speed of LIGHT. It's light! That's like asking what is the maximum amount a brick can weigh, and getting the response 'twice as much as a brick can' it makes no sense, and it doesn't answer the question!

Furthermore, converting mass to energy is what radioactive decay does, not acceleration. As a body approaches the speed of light it acquires MORE mass, approaching infinite; thus requiring approaching infinite energy to accelerate it further. That is why a car will never travel the speed of light, because it would require infinite energy to move infinite mass, not because it needs to convert its mass to energy.

Please go read a book or two before posting again.
  • 0

#14 Cipher22

Cipher22

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 26 June 2007 - 04:14 AM

What grade of chemistry are you in? And why are you asking a chemistry teacher about a physics problem?

The speed of light is a constant. Light [b]cannot[b] ever[i] travel at twice the speed of LIGHT. It's light! That's like asking what is the maximum amount a brick can weigh, and getting the response 'twice as much as a brick can' it makes no sense, and it doesn't answer the question!

Furthermore, converting mass to energy is what radioactive decay does, not acceleration. As a body approaches the speed of light it acquires MORE mass, approaching infinite; thus requiring approaching infinite energy to accelerate it further. That is why a car will never travel the speed of light, because it would require infinite energy to move infinite mass, not because it needs to convert its mass to energy.

Please go read a book or two before posting again.


Actually, I made the whole thing up since I knew [i]somebody
was bound to spaz out about it. He actually said the same thing you did, but that's no fun. I think burning a hole in space time is waaaaaayyyy cooler. BTW, he teaches physics too. Thanks for the brief entertainment.
  • 0

#15 sarcasticblonde

sarcasticblonde

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 29 June 2007 - 11:59 PM

1. Let's say (hypothetically) there is a bullet, which can shoot through any barrier. Let's say there is also an absolutely bullet-proof armour, and nothing gets through it. What will happen, if such bullet hits such armour?
Unstoppable force meets immovable object, huh? As was already mentioned, you can't have both. One of them would be proved untrue when the 2 met.

2. Can a man drown in the fountain of eternal life? No, but he could remain eternally underwater in agony -- it isn't the fountain of eternal PERFECT life, is it?

3. Your mission is to not accept the mission. Do you accept?
Doesn't matter, does it? -- there is no real mission. Accepting it means you don't accept it and Not accepting it means you inadvertently accepted it. Whoever gave you the mission is trying to distract you from something

4. This girl goes into the past and kills her Grandmother. Since her Grandmother is dead the girl was never born, if she was never born she never killed her grandmother and she was born. Not enough information here ... the ASSUMPTION is the girl went back to a time before she was born ... but it doesn't say that, does it? So say the girl just goes back to yesterday & kills her grandmother -- then it wouldn't affect the girl being born at all. Otherwise, it depends on what you believe about the space-time continuum and if you believe in multiple planes of existence, etc. Perhaps the girl continued to exist in the past where she had traveled to, but could not travel back to her own time, because she didn't exist in the future. That's why "Back to the Future" was so wacky ... when he made it less likely that his parents got together, his own existence begin to be threatened.

5. If the temperature this morning is 0 degrees and the Weather Channel says, "it will be twice as cold tomorrow,".... What will the temperature be? C'mon, are we still trying to multiply with 0? Two times 0 = what? Zero. So saying it will be twice as cold as 0 is pointless.

6. Answer truthfully (yes or no) to the following question: Will the next word you say be no? My response: "Truthfully? No." The trick here is not to assume you have to answer in 1 word. The "next word" I said wasn't no, and so my response was correct, technically.

7. What happens if you are in a car going the speed of light and you turn your headlights on?
Seriously, if you're in a car going the speed of light, you have far more things to worry about than the lights!

8. I conclude with this challenge:
Let the God Almighty create a stone, which he can not pick up (is not capable of lifting)![/quote]
I have to agree with the previous poster who said that God just has to say he won't pick it up, and then he becomes incapable of lifting it, because he won't break his word. Again, the initial assumption is he is not capable of lifting it due to physical constraints, but if you get past that, you understand it could be due to other, non-physical constraints.
  • 0

#16 Riddari

Riddari

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 48 posts

Posted 30 June 2007 - 02:05 AM

1. Let's say (hypothetically) there is a bullet, which can shoot through any barrier. Let's say there is also an absolutely bullet-proof armour, and nothing gets through it. What will happen, if such bullet hits such armour?
I actually don't think either can exist. Basically, the bullet would have to be infinitely piercing and the armor would have to be infinitely resistant. However, by definition, infinity in unattainable.

2. Can a man drown in the fountain of eternal life?
This one depends which definition you use for drowning. The question would imply that the intended definition is to die from lack of oxygen due to submersion in water. In that case, the eternal life feature of the fountain should keep you alive. Extensive testing would need to be done to to determine the effects of trying to drown someone in this fountain. Alternately, we can simply claim that a fountain of eternal life does not exist and therefore it is not possible to drown in it.

3. Your mission is to not accept the mission. Do you accept? Doesn't matter, does it?
Accepting a mission does not mean you will succeed and accomplishing the goal of the mission does not require acceptance of the mission. So, it does not really matter how you answer. You can accept the mission, thereby failing it, or you decline the mission, thereby meeting the objective.

4. This girl goes into the past and kills her Grandmother. Since her Grandmother is dead the girl was never born, if she was never born she never killed her grandmother and she was born.
First we must assume that time travel is possible, which I do not personally believe. Then, we need to understand how events occur in time. If there is only one time line and traveling through time equates to hoping to a different point on that line, then this paradox would cause a potential loop where every other iteration the girl was born, traveled back in time and killed her grandmother, thus creating an iteration where she does not exist to go back and kil her grandmother. Alternately, events could all occur in separate streams. So, the girl would skip over to a different time stream where her grandmother exists, kill her there and then there would be to girl born in that time stream. Then the girl could live out her life in the time stream where she killed her grandmother or she could return to her own time stream and take her grandmother out to diner.

5. If the temperature this morning is 0 degrees and the Weather Channel says, "it will be twice as cold tomorrow,".... What will the temperature be?
My interpretation of this would require a defined comfortable temperature, say 70F. A measure of how cold it is would be determined by how far below 70F the temperature fell. If the temperature today was 0f and tomorrow was expected to be twice as cold, then I would expect it to be -70F. Of course, there are some major flaws with this approach. Everyone would have their own comfortable temperature, so the statement would mean different things to different people. More than likely, the meteorologist who made the prediction would be basing this on their own comfortable temperature. Also, using my example, this would require a huge change in temperature.

6. Answer truthfully (yes or no) to the following question: Will the next word you say be no?
I like the answer above using a different, less obvious answer. I would go with "probably not".

7. What happens if you are in a car going the speed of light and you turn your headlights on?
I have not gotten to the point in physics to really understand what would happen here. My intuition tells me that the light particles would be blasted out of the bulbs at roughly twice the speed of light, but would quickly decelerate to the normal speed of light. However, I have read a bit on the theories and it would seem that light does not play by the same rules.

8. I conclude with this challenge:
Let the God Almighty create a stone, which he can not pick up (is not capable of lifting)!
My answer to this is very similar to my answer to the first question. Infinity does not actually exist. So, God Almighty can not really be infinitely powerful and can not create a rock which is infinitely heavy.
  • 0

#17 Headswabby

Headswabby

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 02 July 2007 - 01:32 AM

The speed of light is a constant. Light cannot ever travel at twice the speed of LIGHT. It's light! That's like asking what is the maximum amount a brick can weigh, and getting the response 'twice as much as a brick can' it makes no sense, and it doesn't answer the question!



All I want to say about this is very bad analogy. A brick will "weigh" differently depending on the amount of force used (gravity). In order to correct your statement, you would need to use the word "mass". Yes, it is a minor thing, but when we're talking physics, watch what words you use.

However I agree with the rest of the post you made Incognitum. Since c (speed of light) is a universal constant, there should be no visible light emitted from the light source, in this case the headlights. The only problem i could foresee with our explanation would be we are basing our observation off of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, which only corroborates with speeds up to the speed of light. So objects traveling the speed of light are not included.

Regardless, as mentioned previously, the situation is impossible.

So the short answer to #7? "You would probably think you're headlights are broken"

We also solved #4 using physics. In order for a time machine to be possible, you would need to accelerate faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, which is impossible in our current understandings. Therefore the scenario is impossible.

My non-technical answer for #4 would be "the time police would stop her before she could commit the offense, since they obviously would know the exact time of the murder."
  • 0

#18 becsting

becsting

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 02 July 2007 - 04:09 AM

ok, for the one about the grandmother. The girl could of went back in time and killed her grandmother after the fact that her grandmother's child(the girl's parent) was born, which still makes her exist because her mom or dad already was born. Also it doesn't tell what date she went back in time to. For all we know, she could of went 2 minutes back in time and the girl would still be alive.
  • 0

#19 Riddari

Riddari

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 48 posts

Posted 02 July 2007 - 07:42 PM

This girl goes into the past and kills her Grandmother. Since her Grandmother is dead the girl was never born, if she was never born she never killed her grandmother and she was born.



The scenario clearly states that the girl was never born. So, it is not unreasonable to conclude that they girl went back to a time before her mother was born. You can not get around the question be changing the scenario.

Also, I don't think it is fair to question the reality of time travel. Using physics to explain the headlight question is fair, but this exercise is intended to consider what might occur if time travel were possible. Negating a condition of the puzzle does not solve the puzzle. It would be kind of like answering one of the Honestant/Swindlecant puzzles by saying that no one always lies or always tells the truth.

Finally, I would not rely on the time cops. If time travel really is possible, it would be extremely difficult for any time cops to detect any paradox and even more difficult to prevent them.
  • 0

#20 unreality

unreality

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6370 posts

Posted 03 July 2007 - 02:19 AM

Think about these - Back to the Paradoxes

1. Let's say (hypothetically) there is a bullet, which can shoot through any barrier. Let's say there is also an absolutely bullet-proof armour, and nothing gets through it. What will happen, if such bullet hits such armour?

2. Can a man drown in the fountain of eternal life?

3. Your mission is to not accept the mission. Do you accept?

4. This girl goes into the past and kills her Grandmother. Since her Grandmother is dead the girl was never born, if she was never born she never killed her grandmother and she was born.

5. If the temperature this morning is 0 degrees and the Weather Channel says, "it will be twice as cold tomorrow,".... What will the temperature be?

6. Answer truthfully (yes or no) to the following question: Will the next word you say be no?

7. What happens if you are in a car going the speed of light and you turn your headlights on?

8. I conclude with this challenge:
Let the God Almighty create a stone, which he can not pick up (is not capable of lifting)!



1. They can both exist, easily. It depends which one is made first. A bullet can be made that can pierce through anything.. that exists of course. Then bullet proof armor is invented that can now resist everything. Or the bullet can be invented second. Whatever. What they can pierce/deflect would be determined when they were made. The SEARS tower was the tallest building in the world. We called it that. Then someone else built a taller one.

2. well u could drown, then be reawakened by the fountain, right?

3. "the" could refer to a different mission... it will be a true paradox if they change "the mission" to "this mission"

4. well if every time u go back in time, it creates a parallel universe, ALL time paradoxes are solved. because ppl dont realize time traveling backwards creates millions of paradoxes similar to that, just at an atomic and subatomic level. creating a new "branching universe" every time u go backwards solves all that

5. twice as cold doesnt exist, u have to make it half as hot. which would be still 0. thats not really a paradox

6. thats a great paradox!

7. i dont think anybody knows

8. thats not even a frikkin paradox... i dont get it.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users