Think about these

[Guest]

For #2, you have to drink the water to have eternal life. If you inhale it rather than ingest it, you will drown.

For #5, you can't measure cold. Cold is a word discribing a lack of heat. Scientifically the only 0 degrees is 0 kelvin in which there would be no Weather Channel since all matter would stop moving.

For #6, nope. I answered truthfully and the next work wasn't no.

[Guest]

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?

It gets lodged half way through.

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

No, he will inhale the water but stay alive (sort like they did in the film Abyss only that was special oxygenated liquid).

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

Would you prefer it if I did?

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.

Microsoft Windows operates on this principle every day by killing the very processes that allow it to exist. So it must be possible.

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?

0 degrees (Celsius or Fahrenheit) is 273 Kelvin. On the principle that twice as cold is half as warm, it will be 136.5 Kelvin, or -136.5 degrees Celsius. Better put on a warm jacket.

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

I would have to say no. (that was a truthful yes or no answer in which the next word I said was "I". Hah!)

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

Assuming the car is travelling in a forwards direction, light will shine on the area behind the bulb filament (the socket and reflector) but no light will be emitted in a forwards direction. (There is also the possibility that the electrical circuit will not work at the speed of light.)

8. I conclude with this challenge:

Let the God Almighty create a stone, which he can not pick up (is not capable of lifting)!

Simple: create it on the ground.

[Guest]

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.

actually the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant but thats not every situation

[Guest]

Ano....

1. If they're both invincible, then neither would win, right..? It's like adding an acid of ph 6 to a base of ph 8 and getting ph 7, a neutral substance... They would have to fuze, or combine in some-way....

2. Since he's in a fountain that would preserve his life for all eternity I would think that he would survive even if his musclesscreamed out in agony due to no oxygen. :/ Painful, but it's an existance, right?

3. Yes, I accept the mission, but I'm afraid I can't carry it out for an extended period of time. Perhaps you should come back tomorrow and ask me again, or some other time like that..?

4. Well, since the question obviously makes it clear that she would go back in time before her mother was born and killed her grandmother, by stating that she was no longer born, then I would have to say that if her mother were not alive, then was this woman really her grandmother..?

5. Since it doesn't give me a unit, F, C, or K, I'll have to use celsius because it's easiest, it's the same as farenheit in regards to measuring heat, and if we were at 0 Kelvin there would be no degrees... Temperature measures heat, and at 0 degrees Celsius we have from -273 to 273 degrees Celsius. The hlf-way point between 0 and -273 would be -136.5 degrees Celsius, I would say that we're in for a very cold day.....

6. Since it says the 'next' word, then I would something other than 'yes' or 'no' and then saying 'no' because they never stated that my answer had to come first. -Knowing me, I would try to circumvent the question first and then answer....-

7. SInce I haven't taken physics yet so lets leave this question alone until I'm partially sure that I know what I'm talking about.......

8. There is no such thing as an "ALMIGHTY" God. If he makes a pebble that he cannot lift, physically or due to some other reason, then he can't lift it, therefore he is not all powerful. The reason why isn't relevant, it's the fact that he still can't lift it.

[Guest]

1. wouldn't an unstoppable force pass right through an immovable object without leaving any evidence that it did (a hole in the armor)?

[Guest]

1. First it actually depends on how fast the bullet is traveling. They don't really tell you the acceleration it's going before the initial collision. (Basic physics)

[Guest]

5. Fahrenheit 0 = -17.7

-17.7/2 = -8.8 Celsius

Celsius 0 = 32 (or)

32/2 = 16 Fahrenheit

[Guest]

6. "possibly not"

"maybe"

"perhaps"

I probably can't say no,but I can still TYPE "no"

Edited May 28, 2008 by silverag47

[Guest]

7. At that speed your headlights would be broken down in to subatomic particles (the would be nothing to turn on!)

Edited May 28, 2008 by silverag47

[Guest]

8. ...better find a new religion (contridicts itself)

[Guest]

Well, seeing as how I'm too lazy to read through the 24 pages of replies, I'll just hope no one has posted this answer to number 1.

One of those items doesn't exist if the other does. If, in fact, there was a bullet that could go through anything, the barrier would not do anything, as the bullet can go through everything, and vice-versa.

[Guest]

1. i think the bullet will shatter and the bullet proof vast will also shatter at least break and make a hole.

so, the bullet actually did went through the bullet proof vast because there is a hole. Also, bullet proof vast blocked the

bullet because bullet didn't went through it.

2. can a man be drown in the fountain of the eternal life? or the fountain of the youth???

well, either way, he'll survive. but, since the fountain isn't the fountain of painless, he/she would feel the pain of being

drown but not dieng. Eventually, he/she will learn themselves how to swim to get out.

3. For me, i would not accept the mission because, if i accept the missio, i fail the mission, but if i don't accept the mission,

that JUST means that i didn't do my mission. it's better to not to do the mission then it is to fail the mission.

4. Well, actually, the statement shouldn't go that way. What it's suppose to be is, she killed her grandmother, that's possible

she exists. Then, when the grandmother dies, the girl was never born. So,, overall, As soon as her grandmother dies,

the girl to simultaneously disappear. including the girl's mom and dad.

5. because we have fixed mind, we usually think twice as the number times two. but this case, it's the number plus it self.

but, for the weather, my answer is -2 degrees celcius.

6. i can't answer,

7. the light will stay in the bulb

8. god can change it!!!

[Guest]

from a religious point of view, i reckon for 8 that God is so powerful that it would work wherever He is but it just doesn't make sense to us on earth but i don't wanna get into an argument about it

[Guest]

from a religious point of view, i reckon for 8 that God is so powerful that it would work wherever He is but it just doesn't make sense to us on earth but i don't wanna get into an argument about it

No?

I did; Right here earlier in this thread (Post 198)

It is not really a "religious point of view" problem at all, but a purely logical one

[Guest]

Wow yeah those are some things to think about alright...this is just retarded i'm sorry.

[Guest]

As for number 2, i believe it is actually the "fountain of youth" in which case he would drown and probably never decompose, in the context of the question however it depends on whether eternal life merely lets you live forever while still being able to be hurt, or protects you from all harm, or both.

As for number 5, it is simply a matter of taking the used form of measurement (whether Celsius, Kelvin, or Fahrenheit) and converting it to another find the usable temperature. Then if you have a negative number multiply by 2 if positive divide by 2... (mathematically and scientifically that is... i believe that in the end it would be much more technical beginning with how you would define cold and at what temperature however i am possibly looking to far into it with that...)

To number 7, the headlight will turn on yet it will be trapped at it's exact source so long as you go EXACTLY the speed of light any slower and it will be ahead of you.... the real question i believe should be:

"What happens if you are in a car going 'faster than' the speed of light and you turn your headlights on?"

to number 7: This person clearly does not understand the theory of relativity, the light would travel away from the car at the speed of light relative to the person in the car (it is impossible to "catch up to light"), but a bystander would also see the light traveling at the speed of light, which means that light must be directly related to time, and time would be going slower for the person in the car since he is traveling faster than the bystander

Edited June 12, 2008 by kyle9933

[Guest]

Good old Question 7:

Well it comes down to this; Calculating speeds by adding two together (like the speed of the vehicle PLUS that of the light going from it) is technically incorrect - that is not the right way to measure the total speed (of the light from the vehicle in this case).

Generally it is fine because at relatively slow speeds (that is; relative to the speed of light! ) the difference is so negligible to be close enough, unless you are needing insane degrees of accuracy down to many many decimal places!

Here is an example; from here; which uses the analogy of a truck going 60 miles an hour and it's headlights (in a vacuum) - how fast is the light then going?

{Note it works exactly the same, with the same final result if you set the vehicle speed to the speed of light as well!}

v_result = (v1 + v2) / ( 1 + ((v1*v2)/(c²)))

That is, the resulting speed is equal to the familiar sum of the original speeds (v1 and v2), DIVIDED BY 1 plus (v1*v2 divided by the square of c).

You can see the effect of different speeds by calculating the above formula for different speeds v1 and v2. In your example, where v1 = 60 mph = 1/60 miles per second, and v2 = c = 186,000 miles per second:

                  (1/60  +  186,000) miles per second 

v_result =   ------------------------------------------------

                   1 +      (1/60 * 186,000) 

                          ---------------------

                           (186,000 * 186,000)



                  (1/60 + 186,000) miles per second

         =    -------------------------------------------

                      1 +      1/60

                            ---------

                             186,000


Continuing to simplify:                    

                   1/60 + 186,000 miles per second

v_result =   --------------------------------------------

                          186,000 + 1/60

                         ----------------

                             186,000


                    1 mps

         =   -------------------

                      1

                  ---------

                   186,000


         =  186,000 miles per second = c  [/codebox]

[Guest]

i can answer no. six: elephant. no. O YEAH I PWN

[Guest]

1 u shoot the person in the head

2 if he dosent swallow only inhales

3 i dont have any missions but then i wouldnt accept it to avoid the whole choice all together

4 if she went into the past and killed her it would still happen unless her gma invented the machine...

5 some decimal point because nothing in weather can be exactly zero

6 of course not (stil of form of no)

7 you'd turn ur headlights on

8 wel its not like to create it he has to pick it up there would just be one massive or massivley paked moleculed stone

Edited June 17, 2008 by me=1337jk

[Guest]

Good old Question 7:

Well it comes down to this; Calculating speeds by adding two together (like the speed of the vehicle PLUS that of the light going from it) is technically incorrect - that is not the right way to measure the total speed (of the light from the vehicle in this case).

Generally it is fine because at relatively slow speeds (that is; relative to the speed of light! ) the difference is so negligible to be close enough, unless you are needing insane degrees of accuracy down to many many decimal places!

Here is an example; from here; which uses the analogy of a truck going 60 miles an hour and it's headlights (in a vacuum) - how fast is the light then going?

{Note it works exactly the same, with the same final result if you set the vehicle speed to the speed of light as well!}

v_result = (v1 + v2) / ( 1 + ((v1*v2)/(c²)))

That is, the resulting speed is equal to the familiar sum of the original speeds (v1 and v2), DIVIDED BY 1 plus (v1*v2 divided by the square of c).

You can see the effect of different speeds by calculating the above formula for different speeds v1 and v2. In your example, where v1 = 60 mph = 1/60 miles per second, and v2 = c = 186,000 miles per second:

                  (1/60  +  186,000) miles per second 

v_result =   ------------------------------------------------

                   1 +      (1/60 * 186,000) 

                          ---------------------

                           (186,000 * 186,000)



                  (1/60 + 186,000) miles per second

         =    -------------------------------------------

                      1 +      1/60

                            ---------

                             186,000


Continuing to simplify:                    

                   1/60 + 186,000 miles per second

v_result =   --------------------------------------------

                          186,000 + 1/60

                         ----------------

                             186,000


                    1 mps

         =   -------------------

                      1

                  ---------

                   186,000


         =  186,000 miles per second = c  [/codebox]

dude its a paradox u cant use that type of logic just open ur mind and think freely

[Guest]

dude its a paradox u cant use that type of logic just open ur mind and think freely

Dude (you do know that means "an inexperienced Copwboy" right?) it's not a paradox. The OP might have thought it was, but he was wrong (same for a number of the others as well.)

If they were true paradoxes they couldn't be answered, that's the whole point.

By the way I always try to use Logic, it's my thing

SInce you commented on my latest (I have a few earlier as well):

1 u shoot the person in the head

Nope; it says "What will happen, if such bullet hits such armour?"

2 if he dosent swallow only inhales

Indeed Or as happened in a Discworld novel: If he drinks it without boiling it first - It does not stipulate how the water bestows eternal life, drowning in it might not involve the means that bestows its gift.

3 i dont have any missions but then i wouldnt accept it to avoid the whole choice all together

Nope, you Do have a mission; it's not to accept this mission. But close:

If you do not accept the mission, all that means is that what you happened to do was fulfil the mission anyway, no problem. Not accepting the mission does not mean I can't still do what the mission asks. For example if an agency offers me a mission to kill Agent X, I could quite happily reject the mission offer, and then go out and kill the guy for my own reasons anyway (they wouldn't have to pay me though).

4 if she went into the past and killed her it would still happen unless her gma invented the machine...

Wha?! Nah; what does that have to do with anything?

If she went back, killed granny - and assuming this is before her mother/father(granny's kid) was born, as suggested but not stated by the "the girl was never born" - then either this is a true paradox or:

1. Time travel (at least backward time travel) is impossible, or

2. It merely results in a different time path (one of the Multiverse hypotheses (Level III if I recall correctly) being taken. (Happens in the X-Men all the bloody time )

It might simply be that "this girl" has a personal history that is not linear (past to future in the conventional sense), a part of which is not shared by the new "Granny died" time-line.

5 some decimal point because nothing in weather can be exactly zero

What does "some decimal point" even mean? But anyway, no. Try this:

My post on it (#208)

Possible answers include

0^o kelvin or -136.58^oC or -229.84^oF

6 of course not (stil of form of no)

This is the typical attempt to answer it, wordplay around it by not doing as asked (answering yes or no), as this is clearly stated you fail. It is a true paradox if one is truly restrained to say yes or no, and to immediately answer the question.

Otherwise you could say anything, like "Hamburger, oh you asked a question? No, the next word I said was Hamburger " Or "No, oh sorry I wasn't responding to your question (I was telling this mosquito not to bite me), yes the next word I said was No."

7 you'd turn ur headlights on

True, nicely spotted (well except for the whole "would it even be a car anymore at that speed?" But that's not really a problem in thought experiments)

My response was simply an explanation of how the whole speed of light deal works, more a response to other attempts to explain that rather than a direct response to the OP's question - although that question is a favourite in physics.

Here it is again (#242)

8 wel its not like to create it he has to pick it up there would just be one massive or massivley paked moleculed stone

This was actually a really badly worded one by the OP. But then; so is your response!

It comes from a rather famous question however:

Could God create a stone so heavy that even he could not lift it?

Thought by many to be a true paradox. It isn't. I answered that one earlier as well:

Here it is (#198)

[Guest]

Thought by many to be a true paradox. It isn't. I answered that one earlier as well:

Here it is (#198)

How is it not a true paradox? We accept that this god can do anything, and then you say this god cannot create a stone that he can't pick up.

[Guest]

For the traveling at the speed of light, it can depend, what speed are you talking about, because under cirtan circumstance light can be slowed down if you are traveling at the speed of light when it is slowed down, then the same thing as usual would happen, light would shoot out of the headlights at the average speed of light.

[Guest]

How is it not a true paradox? We accept that this god can do anything, and then you say this god cannot create a stone that he can't pick up.

That's right Not a paradox AND God cannot create a stone that he can't pick up.

Read the post I wrote carefully (and repeatedly if necessary) Here it is again (#198),

and the post (and the subsequent posts in that thread) I linked to from that post (Here that is as well), I explained that.

The key is that the apparent paradox only exists in the wording chosen, not the actual situation. This rewording demonstrates this:

Could God (defined as an entity with no limits to his power) create a Rock that has a weight beyond the limits of his Stone lifting power?

The simple answer: No, because he has no such limits

[Guest]

For the traveling at the speed of light, it can depend, what speed are you talking about, because under cirtan circumstance light can be slowed down if you are traveling at the speed of light when it is slowed down, then the same thing as usual would happen, light would shoot out of the headlights at the average speed of light.

It would too! Light is slowed (slightly) when it travels through a medium (like air).

One would still be travelling pretty damn fast though, so the light would travel out in front of the vehicle at the max speed of light (This is the max speed possible - see my maths in above post). It would no doubt seem really sluggish to us in the vehicle, as it would be traveling faster than us and out in foront of us, but not much faster!

Kinda like seeing a car "whizz" past you at 100kph when you are travelling at 99kph