568 replies to this topic

[TheChad]

This is the law of relativity. The time is not constant, it's relative to the speed. So this is not a paradox. It was one, before Einstein, it isn't now.

That is the THEORY of relativity.

[otah007]

In answer to number 8, if God creates a stone he cannot lift, he will cease to be God, therefore it will not happen, therefore it cannot and will not be done. Also, you can't drown if you're alwys alive. Problem solved!

[ericself]

there are a lot of answers to #3 but i still haven't heard "i accept, but must admit defeat" i know kinda lame but it works the question isn't will you succeed its will you accept

there are a couple of people who are close to answering #7 correctly but never fully explain themselves.
it is impossible. once you hit the speed of light you obtain infinite mass and with that mass comes infinite gravitational pull, thus making a black hole. at that point your headlights no longer exist (and neither do you for that matter)

and i haven't seen one post that came close to answering #8
lifting is relivent to the direction up (you cant lift something down or right or left, you push/pull down and move/push/pull sideways)the direction up is relitive to gravity (even if your doing a head stand, at noon the sun is above you not below you)
so if God Almighty created a rock where there is no gravity then it would be impossible to lift for the lack of the dirrection up

[Darth Legion]

#1 is easy which was made first, the undefined bullet? or the undefined bullet proofing? The one to claim the title of last is the one that is correct

[TheChad]

and i haven't seen one post that came close to answering #8
lifting is relivent to the direction up (you cant lift something down or right or left, you push/pull down and move/push/pull sideways)the direction up is relitive to gravity (even if your doing a head stand, at noon the sun is above you not below you)
so if God Almighty created a rock where there is no gravity then it would be impossible to lift for the lack of the dirrection up

So if lifting depends o gravity, and we believe the big bang/big crunch theory, then there is always a central point of gravity and always an up.
I also originally heard the paradox as a stone so large god could not move it.

I love how all our paradox responses are semantic in nature.

[TheChad]

Re: Everyone who said you can't go the speed of light... answer this:

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...-neutrinos.html

[Ravyn Gale]

I wish I was as smart as these other people but I'll try anyways
1. maybe half of the bullet would penetrate it...
2. you wouldnt drown.
3. you would fail epicly
4. it would be a circle
5. -2 cause hes saying it would be double the cold
6. if you say no your wrong, but if you say yes wrong too, but if you say i dont know, technichly your right
7. the headights would twice as far
8. he would make a rock and swear to never to pick it up, since he is a good person he would not go against his word.

[Jesse Tambornini]

With the speed of light car one, the headlights would shine out in front like normal because the speed of light is relative to the observer, any an all observers will view light goin the speed of light.

[Jesse Tambornini]

For the neutrios link guy, their ability to go faster was disproven. The bulls is like "unstoppable force meets immovable object." Unstopable force would have infinite kinetic energy, and the immovable object, infinite mass. Neither can in any way exist in a finite universe.

[TheChad]

Their ability to go faster wasn't disproven.
A competing scientist made a counter-claim based on traditional experiments.

The OPERA experiment and Icarus experiment are measuring the same thing with different methods.
OPERA focuses on speed, Icarus focuses on energy.

OPERA claimed to see a faster than light speed, while Icarus results showed that the neutrino did not lose any energy.
The Icarus team claims that anything moving faster than the speed of light needs to lose energy, as shown by experiments with particles travelling faster than light through a medium (like water, since light is slowed considerably in water).
They believe that particles going faster than the speed of light would have something comparable to a sonic boom, except they would expunge electrons and protons.

So, the rebuttal claimed by the Icarus team is based on the entrenched theories and doesn't actually disprove the results by OPERA.

But if you wish to believe a naysayer just because they said so, be my guest.