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

#21 savagegamer90

savagegamer90

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 77 posts

Posted 03 July 2007 - 05:45 PM

#8 is a paradox because if god could make a stone that he couldn't physicaly lift, then he wouldn't be almighty. And if he cant make a stone that he couldn't lift, then he obviously isn't almighty.
  • 0

#22 howtex

howtex

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 03 July 2007 - 08:52 PM

#8 is a paradox because if god could make a stone that he couldn't physicaly lift, then he wouldn't be almighty. And if he cant make a stone that he couldn't lift, then he obviously isn't almighty.



I disagree with this statement. 'Almighty' as is used in this supposed paradox is the ability to do anything. By God not doing something that he is capable of doing does not limit his ability to do said thing. Put another way, in the context of the "paradox":

God can make a stone he is not capable of moving, he does not, that is why he is God.

Put in another context that is perhaps easier to digest.

God can not lie, for if he did, he would cease to be God.

I guess the "paradox" simply illustrates the priciple that there are consequences, even for God. As Newton states, "To every action force there is an equal, but opposite, reaction force". There is opposition in all things.
  • 0

#23 gondorian

gondorian

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 03 July 2007 - 08:56 PM

The light you would see from the headlights would appear to you to be going the speed of light. Any observer will always measure the speed of light to be the same, no matter how fast they are moving. However, it is impossible for a car, or any material object, to reach the speed of light, so this doesn't make sense.
  • 0

#24 howtex

howtex

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 03 July 2007 - 09:09 PM

The light you would see from the headlights would appear to you to be going the speed of light. Any observer will always measure the speed of light to be the same, no matter how fast they are moving




Gondorian: Thank you!

Cipher22: you capitulated too quickly.

Incognitum: It looks like you should read some books on relativity
  • 0

#25 Incognitum

Incognitum

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts

Posted 04 July 2007 - 10:45 AM

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 headlight.

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.




First, this is wrong. The MAXIMUM weight of a brick is a constant, regardless of specific gravity, density of atmosphere, variabilities in brick manufacture etc... The MAXIMUM amount will be the one where all these variables are at the position on the spectrum which results in greatest measure of weight. This is what MAXIMUM means. Therefore, it is a perfect analogy to the speed of light, which also is a constant.

Second, no, this is wrong. You will not think your headlights are broken because relative to your position in the car your headlights will travel away from you at the speed of light. Celeritus ('C') is constant relative to ALL observers; including you in the car.

Third, Being as no time machine has ever been invented, how do you know the operating principle used in it's design? ...Unless you have a time machine and went to the future to ask...
  • 0

#26 Incognitum

Incognitum

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts

Posted 04 July 2007 - 10:53 AM

Incognitum: It looks like you should read some books on relativity




Perhaps my posts have been too technical for you to follow, but I would submit that my library has a sufficiently large section devoted to relativity and related concepts.

Please have the courtesy in future to cite specific objections that may be rebutted or revised; this nebulous disparaging of my literacy is not appreciated.

Make no mistake, if you think I have erred I welcome you to bring it to my attention, but please help me mend my erroneous notions by demonstrating the fallacy in question.
  • 0

#27 howtex

howtex

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 05 July 2007 - 07:00 PM

Please have the courtesy in future to cite specific objections that may be rebutted or revised; this nebulous disparaging of my literacy is not appreciated.



Incognitum,
Sorry for the lack of courtesy in not citing the specific objection. It was, however ment to be vague. I was simply throwing back the same comment you made to Cipher22. It appeared that you were arogantly tearing down (instead of building up by the strength of your own arguments) when you stated that Cipher22 should read a book or two before posting again.

The specific objection was relating to your brick analogy, which you responded to Headswabby and dug yourself an even deeper hole. What you are saying about the the speed of light is correct and I think everyone understands what you meant by the maximum "weight" of a brick, it is simply not stated correctly. The weight of the same brick can change. Theoretically there is no maximum, practically there is sure to be. But the fact that a bricks weight can change and the speed of light does not makes it a poor analogy (in my opinion). Maybe I have misunderstood your response to Headswabby, but from my point of view you were grasping at straws. Maybe you can explain it to me in a way that is not too technical for me to follow.

I accept your proposition that your library has a sufficiently large section devoted to relativity and related concepts. However, because you have them does not mean that you read them. So what does the size of your library have to do with anything?


P.S. Don't take anything I am writing too seriously, bleive me, I don't. I am just having a little fun. I could'nt have hard feeling towards a Feynman fan.

Could you do me a favor? Can you please provide an explanation for your signature:

Poinete! Ede, ede; tachu, tachu!



Thanks
  • 0

#28 Headswabby

Headswabby

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 06 July 2007 - 03:09 PM

First, this is wrong. The MAXIMUM weight of a brick is a constant, regardless of specific gravity, density of atmosphere, variabilities in brick manufacture etc... The MAXIMUM amount will be the one where all these variables are at the position on the spectrum which results in greatest measure of weight. This is what MAXIMUM means. Therefore, it is a perfect analogy to the speed of light, which also is a constant.



Weight implies the amount of gravitational force on an object is being taken into account.

Second, no, this is wrong. You will not think your headlights are broken because relative to your position in the car your headlights will travel away from you at the speed of light. Celeritus ('C') is constant relative to ALL observers; including you in the car.



Sorry, I should have been more more specific. I'll agree I was not very exact about my statements. What I meant to state was that to an outside observer, the headlights would appear broken. The headlights to the driver would be fine and operating properly.

Third, Being as no time machine has ever been invented, how do you know the operating principle used in it's design? ...Unless you have a time machine and went to the future to ask...



No. I don't have a time machine. Yes I have had physics talks describing what must occur for a time machine to be possible. Let me explain my statement. The twins paradox shows that traveling near the speed of light results in one twin aging slower than the other. If we take this example and extrapolate to the speed of light, time should theoretically stop, and therefore if it were possible to travel faster than the speed of light, you would theoretically be going in reverse time.

Now I may be flawed in my thinking, but this would be the most obvious way to time travel instead of creating alternate whatevers and time skipping through coincidence.
  • 0

#29 comperr

comperr

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts

Posted 08 July 2007 - 10:08 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?
This is the same as what happens if an unstoabble force meets an immovable object. This is the subjct of a long debate so I say:
who cares? neither exist.

2. Can a man drown in the fountain of eternal life?
Yes - but they wouldn't die
besides don't you have to drink from it?

3. Your mission is to not accept the mission. Do you accept?
yes I do. once I accept however if you ask me again I refuse.

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.
This is the grandfather paradox and the answer depends on whether the past is state based to fact based and a bunch of other debates.

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?
zero degrees
2 * 0 = 0
it is the same as asking "what number is twice itself?"

6. Answer truthfully (yes or no) to the following question: Will the next word you say be no?
you can answer yes or no. if you say yes then you say "yes no" and if you answer no you say "no blah"

7. What happens if you are in a car going the speed of light and you turn your headlights on?
ha ha - you can't go the speed of light anyway.

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

To answer this without saying my religion. I make no comment as to what I beleave.

God can not do everything. God is not perfect. God is no word that describe him. He can not be understood by humans. He is 'limited' by his perfection and as such can not do something that would later imped his ability. Therefore god can not create another god or anything like that.
  • 0

#30 kingmadmushroom

kingmadmushroom

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 10 July 2007 - 12:00 AM

correct me if i'm wrong but an unstoppable force can be created:

imagine a wire one atom thick: it would have an (near) infinite pressure and so by adding just a tiny amount of force would cut through anything (because Pressure=Force/Area so if area=0 (or as close as you can get) then any force creates infinite pressure.) on the other hand, it is impossible to make an object which could stop this from slicing through.

and in answer to 8, it is really very simple: God does not exist ....problem solved...
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users