Think about these

[Guest]

for the sentence: answer truthfully (yes or no), will the next word you say be no? say "truthfully, no." it is that simple!!!!

[Guest]

question #1:

As far as an immovable object coexisting with an unstoppable object... it is possible. His name is Chuck Norris, he is both unstoppable and immovable. Bullets dont hit Chuck Norris, Chuck Norris hits bullets.

[Guest]

As for number 1, if there truly is an irresistable force (the mentioned bullet) then there simply cannot be

an immovable object (the armour) otherwise the forementioned couldn't exist. It works the other way too,

if there truly is an immovable object then an irresistable force cannot exist, otherwise there would be no

such thing as an immovable object.

Simply put: by definition one can only exist if the other does not. They cannot both exist at the same time

otherwise neither would have the mentioned qualities.

As for the last question you missed out the point that it must be a being that is described as being omnipotent,

such as the abrahamic God.

If omnipotence truly means ALL powerful and can do absolutely anything then God can do the impossible too.

He can, in theory, create a rock which he cannot lift but then lift it anyway. This however answers the paradox

with another.

Again if God truly is omnipotent then he can create a rock that's really big. Then seal his own omnipotence away

in a device that when triggered will restore his omnipotency. After which he would then attempt and fail to

lift the rock. Then restore his omnipotency.

However this would mean that for a time God was not omnipotent, so God cannot be truly and absolutely

omnipotent, but he can be in some sense of the word.

Edited January 23, 2009 by Sepreath

[Guest]

paradox five: twice as cold means twice as cold relating to the temperature before the (0) so... if the temperature of the day before was (5) then today will be 5 (relatively) = 0 (actual) then tomorrow would be 10 (relatively to before yesterday when tomorrow is today)=5 (actual)

and for paradox #4 the girl goes to the past and kills her grand mother she will create a different time line that she would be born in but if she returns to the time line she was in first then she didnt kill her grandmother yet because the time line is the same she was born in then if she kills her grand mother into the time line that she was born in then she will go back to the timeline that she went to after killing her grandmother and the only way to survive without shifting time lines is to go to the past after she kills her grandmother so she didnt kill her yet

[Guest]

Paradox #4 Going back in time and killing a relative is theoretically impossible. You cannot kill them, as it has already been done in the past, and you could not exist if you did so. So thankfully, going back in time and accidentally killing a relative is impossible.

[Guest]

Not a problem. God creates a pebble and then declares "I shall never pick it up". He is capable of lifting it, but can not break his promise. Conditions met.

not really because God cannot and will not lie. it askes if he is able to do it. so answer is false. but i have my own answer that i got from my pastor when i asked him this same question before i read it here. he answered it without hesitation. His answer was that God has no limitations and we cant comprehend what he can do because we think within the laws HE created so why try to limit HIM to something HE created?

if there are any other questions or if you want to try to test Christanity, i will get back to all of you.

[Guest]

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) Nothing will happen to either two except for never ending friction between the bullet and the barrier; however, each bullet is subject to slow down and eventually cease to move.

2)In eternal life there is only mortality and death is impossible; therefore, there is drowning but no absolute death.

3)Accept the mission. The phrase did not say "Your mission is not to accept THIS mission..."

4)Did the girl kill her grandma before or after her parent was born?

5)The temp. will be how far it decreased by the later parts temp. x two. Ex. The temp dropped -23 degrees making it 0 then -23 below 0 will be the new temp.

6)YES! That then makes me a liar.

7)Then you'll be in complete darkness, for the "time of light" is measured by light from the sun no head lamps.

8)That depends on the God you worship. Some "Gods" of time we're merely beings with certain strenghts.

[Guest]

The 8th one is in fact a bit of an atheist paradox:

It is assumed that God is omnipotent.

If he creates a pebble "he cannot move", and cannot move it, he is not omnipotent.

If he creates a pebble "he cannot move", and moves it, he was unable to create a pebble he could not move, therefore, he is not omnipotent.

[Guest]

The 8th one is in fact a bit of an atheist paradox:

It is assumed that God is omnipotent.

If he creates a pebble "he cannot move", and cannot move it, he is not omnipotent.

If he creates a pebble "he cannot move", and moves it, he was unable to create a pebble he could not move, therefore, he is not omnipotent.

Indeed it is. Solvable though: #198

[Guest]

Well a few of these are slightly more simple to answer than others:

1. Well you could start the argument by saying that the bullet can penetrate any BARRIER. It said nothing about armor. But assuming that the barrier and armor are the same, then the two forces would battle it out like 2 almighty forces with the same potential going dead on head to head. At least until the bullet slows down and falls to the ground, then you may say that the barrier is the winner.

2. Can a man drown in the fountain of life? No. Indeed it's a fountain and if one were to slip and could not swim, they would drown. but because the fountain of life makes one immortal, they would not drown and would have to learn how to swim to get out

3. You don't accept the mission. Period.

4. Should the girl have killed her grandmother BEFORE her mother was born, then her grandmother's death would never

have happened. Time paradox would happen... some inexplainable phenomena. But if the girl's mother was born and THEN she killed her grandmother, the grandmother would have died of murder and the girl would still be there.

5. You could think of it in two different ways: 1. Whatever the latter temperature was the day before, it will be twice as cold as it dropped. So if it was 15 degrees out yesterday and today it's 0 degrees, tomorrow it will be -15 degrees. 2. Is it measured in Celsius or Fahrenheit? If the Fahrenheit temp. is 0, the Celsius temperature will be an entirely different degree and vice versa.

6. If i were to answer Yes, then I would be a liar. Because I did not answer No. If I answered No, then I would still be a liar. Because the next word I said was No, but I would be meaning, "No the next word I say will NOT be no." So you're pretty much a liar with any thing you say.

7. This one was rather a conundrum for me. I try to think of it this way: If you're running down a hill with a ball in your hand and you throw it, the ball will be going the speed you are going plus the velocity of which you threw the ball. If you were standing still and threw the ball at the same velocity as you did when you were running down the hill it would not be going as fast. So if you're in a car moving at the speed of light and you turn your headlights on, the light would be moving at the speed of light*2.

8. If you're talking about the Christian God, then this is just another paradox. God Almighty is... well he's God Almighty. Should he first create a stone that he cannot pick up, he would then do something with his Almightiness and make himself be able to lift the stone.

Edited February 15, 2009 by BrainDed

[Guest]

1. Let's say 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)the instant this 'unstoppable bullet' touches the 'bullet-proof barrier', they will both cease, therefore, causing the bullet to stop, and the barrier to no longer be 'bullet-proof'. thus, none of the two would 'win'.

2)he would be drowning for an eternity.

3)you would have to in order for the mission to not be accepted.

4)it already says 'since the grandmother is dead...' so obviously she has to be dead. besides, its followed by the word 'if', which leaves room for false possibilities.

5)temperatures are just scales made by humans to determine how hot or cold something is. so however cold it 'feels', multiply that feeling twice.

6)there is no right answer. they are both lies.

7)since the car and light are traveling at the same speed, then the light shouldnt travel any faster than the car.

8)well after he makes the stone, he would not be able to change the fact that he cannot lift it since he already put it into existence.

but these are just my thoughts feel free to email me or whatever if u think differently bout it

[Guest]

I think a lot of people have been a little too eager to show off thier "knowledge" of relativity without really understanding it. First off, the theory of special relativity is the solution to this paradox. As a child Einstein wondered how a wave of light would appear if he were running next to it at the same speed, which led him to the formulation of special relativity.

Einstein says two things:

1) That the laws of physics are the same in all intertial reference frames.

2) The speed of Light in a vacuum=c

Rule number one simply says there is no absolute reference frame with which to judge other reference frames and that the same physical laws will apply to both. For example if I am on a conveyor belt going 5 miles an hour past you, to you i am going 5 miles an hour and you are at rest, but to me you are going -5 miles an hour and i am at rest. We can both equally throw a ball in the air and catch it, or say perform an experiment with equal results even though we are moving relative to ech other.

Rule number two says that the speed of light in a vacuum will always be c, since light is a wave this makes sense. Think of a sound wave. When something is making a noise it doesn't matter how fast the noise maker is moving, the sound will still travel through the air at the same speed.

Now think about two different scientists trying to measure the speed of light.

Scientist 1 is at rest relative to Earth

Scientist 2 is approaching Earth at a constant speed of .5c

OK so according to the first postulate, neither reference frame is better than the other. Scientist 1 can say that 2 is approaching him at .5c and 2 can say that 1 is approaching him at .5c. In other words, the two reference frames are equivalent.

Now they set up their experiments to determine the speed of light.

Scientist 1 (who is at rest in his own reference frame and sees scientist two approaching him at .5c) measures the speed of light to be exactly c

and

Scientist 2 (who is at rest in his own reference frame and sees scientist one approaching him at .5c) measures the speed of light to be exactly c.

How can they both measure the same speed?

Before going any further I want to talk about sound waves for a second, when you create a sound wave you are making a disturbance in the air around you. Now suppose you are running and yellling. The disturbance won't travel any faster once it's made, you will just be creating disturbances in different places, which will then travel through the air at some constant rate.

Now say that you were travelling at half the speed of sound through open air and you wanted to measure what the speed of sound was. You would find that the speed of sound was only half what it was when you were at rest.

This is because the medium or,the air is the waves reference frame. If you were in an airtight craft going half the speed of sound and were remeasuring, you would find that the speed of sound was equal to what it was at rest because you are now in the same inertial reference frame as the sound wave.

Here is where it gets a little tricky. When light is travelling through a vacuum, there is no medium. so there is no absolute reference frame with which to base it's speed. The vacuum is the same no matter what frame you're in.

Back to the scientists. Say that scientist 2 is in a rocket passing by scientist 1 going .5c with a big light attached to the nose of it that he is using to measure the speed of light. Both him and scientist 1 have equal reference frames and the laws of physics apply equally so the speed of light in a vacuum will be c to both of them.

So how can this be? Time slows down as you approach the speed of light. Which makes sense when you think about it. If I am going .9c then .1c has to look like c to me when i measure it.

Think about it like this if I leave Earth racing a light wave and I am travelling .9c then for the people of earth one year after i have gone .9 light years, and the light would have travelled 1 light year, a difference of .1 light years. But to me if i travelled for one year, then the light which looks to me like it's travelling at c should be one light year ahead of me.

So one year to me is 9 years to people on Earth.(just a simplification for ease of understanding)

As you get closer and closer to the speed of light time slows down further and further by the equation

t'=t/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

and as v approaches c, t' approaches infinity, which corresponds to time being frozen for the one approaching c.

There is more to special relativity that I won't get into because it's not needed to answer this question, but anyways if anybody is still reading the answer to 7 is that if somehow a car got up to light speed, then when they turned thier lights on the momentum of the photons coming out of the headlights would drop the energy ever so slightly and slow it back down to sub light speed.

[Guest]

Not a problem. God creates a pebble and then declares "I shall never pick it up". He is capable of lifting it, but can not break his promise. Conditions met.

The quesiton is "Is God Omnipotent". He is not if he cannot pick up the stone. That means God can not pick up the stone.

If god said that he cannot pick up that stone, then he is not omnipotent because HE CANNOT PICK UP THE STONE for watever reason

[Guest]

I've always like the "Is God Omnipotent?" paradox. Not because of the question, but because of the solution. For those who believe on God they accept that he is omnipotent and can do all things. For those who don't believe in God they still accept the terms of the puzzle that there is 1) a figure and 2) this figure is all powerful.

So the basic point of the paradox becomes can an all powerful figure limit their own power. And the answer of course is yes, obviously, since the figure is all powerful. But this creates the paradox. Something all powerful cannot limit their own power because then they would not be all powerful. True. But I still think the answer is a very simple yes.

Though something all powerful limiting it's own power is paradoxical that's not the problem. The problem is our lack of understanding. If you've already agreed that this figure is omnipotent then you must also agree that being paradoxical is within the omnipotent figures power. An all powerful being can be simultaniously true and false, it is just our lack of understanding how they would do this that makes us still question this paradox.

[Guest]

3) Just say no.

4)The world unravels.

5) Convert the unit (Fahrenheit, Celsius, etc.) to something that is useable.

6)No, because I'm just typing these words, not saying it.

[Guest]

Im gona attempt this for fun without looking at any answers to see if im thinking right:

1. They both break. i think theres an old chinese proverb that sais something about this.

2. No, u will swallow eternal life before ur heart stops pumping. so u survive.

3. The one who sais this to you must realise that this is like saying nothing at all. so just close ur ears. saying yes or no will make u reject the mission.

4. This is exactly why one cannot go backwards in time. Dont bother thinking about this (its like an excel circular reference lol); heres another paradox: time travel either exists, or it doesnt. Theres no "time travel will be invented in the future". cuz if it did exist in the future, ppl would already be hanging around in the past, and they arent right now, so time travel will never happen.

5. I would take the difference between today's "cold weater (0 degrees Celsius)" and the "normal weather (say 25 degrees Celsius)". Therefore, twice as cold is 25 - 25x2 = -25 degrees

6. THE next word i said was "the" and not "no" (lol thats a very cool one)

7. According to einstein that theres nothing faster than speed of light (im not a physicist so correct me if im wrong), the light wills tay at the headlights of the car and not show u anything ahead

8. I think its another paradox with no solution. but if i were god, i wouldnt do such a thing

(edited for spelling error)

Edited March 11, 2009 by Ronin

[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?

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. the universe would end. period.

#2. yes, if his lungs don't fill up with it. in other words, if he holds his breath and dies, he never drank from the fountain, and it's effects can never take place. if he breaths in the water, then he will be in a lot of pain, but he will not die

#3. this is a true paradox. its impossible to truly accept the mission. if you deny, though it could be considered coincidentally doing exactly what the mission specifies

#4. this is true unless her grandfather goes and does some other chick, then she would still be born, and possibly without the intention of killing her grandmother. if she killed her grandfather, that would be different.

#5. well, it would be easier to measure it in Kelvin, like that one dude did. just look at his post. he said it would be, like -250 degrees Fahrenheit!

#6. i can answer that truthfully, "umm, no" see, i said umm before i said no. you could also say, "yes! oh wait, no!".

#7. no one would notice because the light would not be able to exit the light and reach people's eyes. and when you think abut it, if you went the speed of light, even if you invented a material that could withstand that HUGE, GINORMOUS amount of force, you would be a chunky soup in 3 seconds!

#8. well, what he could do is create a hollow stone that takes up the space of a wal-mart and have himself in a circle inside the stone just big enough for him to move, and he won't be able to pick it up because the pressure he's pushing up, will equal the pressure he's pushing down! (and it has to be a magical stone that can never break in half)

[Guest]

I apologize if this has been posted before, but here's a guess for number 5.

We must assume the temperature is 0 degrees C. (0 degrees F is extremely cold and 0 degrees K is absolute zero, I think.) Anyway, we then convert it to 32 degrees Farinheight (i can't spell it), and then double it. Since it is two times COLDER, though, we should make it negative or basically halving it instead. We then get 16 degrees F. Then convert it to celsius (some one please help) and there is your answer!

Of course, I may be way off, but it's just a guess.

So there you go.

[Guest]

More Answers:

Here's my guess for 6: (again sorry if it's been posted)

I would say,

"let me think... no."

Or, mabye i could say,

"It could be... oh never mind, i guess not"

You could technically say whatever you want, as long as it's a legit yes/no answer and there's some other word before your yes/no. (e.g. probabally)

8 is also easy.

Let Him create a stone, mabye even the size of pebble, and then destroy it. It is gone so how can He pick it up?

I'm not religous, but that was easy and at least I remembered to capitalize "He".

Bunny Master12 signing off. *psht*

[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)?

It's not immovable, it's just bullet-proof.

[Guest]

If you had a bullet that could pierce anything, without the bullet being destroyed in the process, then that in itself is an impossibility. The reason being that in order to be able to pierce anything, it would need to have a skin that is indestructible. If it has an indestructible skin, then you could shoot two bullets made of the same material at each other and neither would be destroyed - proving that there was something it could not pierce - itself!!

It is similar to the paradox of creating the ultimate solvent, a substance that could dissolve absolutely anything at all. What would you use to contain such a substance?

If a car could travel at the speed of light, it would need to be within a space that it could exist. If such a condition was possible, and you were able to turn on the headlights, then of course they would work - within that space. It's a bit like if you are in a vehicle and there is a fly buzzing around your face. Just because the vehicle is travelling at a speed possibly exceeding 50km per hour has no relavence to the fly inside the vehicle. It is not affected by the friction of air passing on the outside the vehicle. If the fly was in front of the vehicle momentarily, it's mass would soon become part of the film on your windscreen.

Time travel to a time before you were born... a concept that is difficult for me to comprehend. That is because I think that logically I exist here and now. I did exist as a child and will continue to exist until I die. Before I existed... was before I existed. So if I did not exist before I existed, then how would I be able to get to that time/state/stage/phase of existance when no existance for me was possible? My mind can conceptualise many things. My body has physical limitations. One of those limitations is physical manifestation within a defined time period. Prior to that time - does not compute. It's like taking a photograph. Before the photograph was taken, it was an undeveloped film. How could the photograph exist before it was developed? Yes, I can unscrew a lightbulb... but a pregnant woman???

[Guest]

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?

First off, two things cannot exist simotaniosly (I can't spell that good) in this universe. If the armor was created first, and then the bullet, the armor would be in void because that one bullet can get through it. But, just for this paradox's sake, let's pretend they both exist.

It specifically states nothing can go through the armor, correct? So, I'd come to believe that the bullet would burry itself halfway in the armor. But it does say the bullet can shoot through any barrier, so I'm wrong. Right?

Not really.

It says it can shoot through any barrier, but the armor is definetly 100% bullet proof. So the bullet, which can shoot through anything, would have a less than 100% chance of doing so, and would lose out against the armor. So it doesn't just bounce off, but lodges itself halfway in the armor. And the armor therefore fufills it's task, along with the bullet. If you think about it it makes sense.

Do you agree? Quote this if you do.

[Guest]

I have the worst answer for nr.1

Whenever you try to test this, something fails, or the bullet goes offcourse

Also i heard somewhere that time travel can´t go before the time it is invented so ofcourse there isn´t anyone here

[Guest]

Do you agree? Quote this if you do.

First off, two things cannot exist simotaniosly (I can't spell that good) in this universe. If the armor was created first, and then the bullet, the armor would be in void because that one bullet can get through it. But, just for this paradox's sake, let's pretend they both exist.

It specifically states nothing can go through the armor, correct? So, I'd come to believe that the bullet would burry itself halfway in the armor. But it does say the bullet can shoot through any barrier, so I'm wrong. Right?

Not really.

It says it can shoot through any barrier, but the armor is definetly 100% bullet proof. So the bullet, which can shoot through anything, would have a less than 100% chance of doing so, and would lose out against the armor. So it doesn't just bounce off, but lodges itself halfway in the armor. And the armor therefore fufills it's task, along with the bullet. If you think about it it makes sense.

that makes perfect sens...

better than my explanation

"the universe would end. period."

also there was someone that posted that some Chinese thing said they would both shatter (it was Ronin). that makes more sense to me.

Edited March 17, 2009 by UGG BUYS UGLY HOUSES!

[Guest]

8. I conclude with this challenge:

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

here's another answer:

he could make the stone the exact size of the universe, and there won't be enough room to pick it up!