Think about these

[Guest]

My answer:

1)the bullet that can penetrate any armor would get stuck halfway while penetrating the absolutely bullet-proof armor. they would both meet half way. the bullet wouldnt go all the way through

2)assuming the man can swim, he would drown at first until he is granted eternal life then he should be fine. But, if the man cannot swim, he will drown for eternity.

3) No, why would you say yes to something you are told to say no to?

4) This next paradox goes into the past twice.. "This girl goes into the past and kills her Grandmother. Since her Grandmother is dead the girl was never born(this is the end of her first passage into the past), if she was never born she never killed her grandmother([going back into the past and bringing grandma to life?]but according to the first part of the statement grandma is already dead thus making this portion of the sentence a fallacy) and she was born.

5) considering that every other country in the world, aside from the US, uses the Celsius measurement, 0degrees C translates to 273K (kelvin) and "twice as cold as [273K]" leaves us with 546K which translates back to 273degrees Celsius, which is melting hot for us humans, unless i went about this process wrong, i dont think the weather channel staff were being literal when they said "twice as cold tomorrow".. and when the term cold is used, doesnt necessarily mean the temperature is going to go down, because 500degrees Celsius is considered cold compared to molten lava, so "cold" referes heat released. and if the weather channel meant that the temperature was going to go down, the temperature would be a -273C.

6)No

7)You wouldnt noticed that you turned your lights on because you are traveling the same speed as the light that is supposed to be projecting, therefore not giving it a chance to project out onto the "road".

8) and boy have i heard this one before and am not going to give a answer in fear of offending anyone

well this was fun, much better than paying attention in the chemistry class i am in.

I'm glad you didn't! (smiles and bows and says thank you) (8) For 8, it actually depends on your religion or belief. I'm a christian so obviously, I know that God can do anything. But actually, what's the point of letting God create a stone and lift it?

[Guest]

I'm glad you didn't! (smiles and bows and says thank you) (8) For 8, it actually depends on your religion or belief. I'm a christian so obviously, I know that God can do anything. But actually, what's the point of letting God create a stone and lift it?

I actually had another interesting argument on that last one.

Here is basically what I ended with:

I thought this, as is often the case, in terms of an imagined discussion, so will put it it that format.

Starring my Imaginary Friend (IF) and myself (ME)

IF: Here's one for you; "Can an Omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it?"

ME: No.

IF: Ah ha! But then If he (we will call it "he" for clarity and simplicity) can't create it then that is a limitation, thus he is NOT Omnipotent.

ME: Not really; you see he could create a stone of ANY weight, no limit there. The only reason he can't do as asked is that a stone that an Omnipotent being can't lift is a logical impossibility. No limits in terms of power (the focus of omnipotence,) just of reason in the question [Read my previous points earlier in this thread for more detail on this.] Even to potentially creating a stone of infinite weight, which he could also lift. His power being EQUALLY infinite (without limit) it makes no sense to say one beyond the limits of the other; they are equally infinite - therefore "beyond" is meaningless, it would be like infinity+3 which is nonsense.

IF: Okay. But there IS still a limit of sorts, there is something that this being, which can do anything, can not do. A clear contradiction. Even though it might not be logical, it can be imagined in a sense; "a stone even he could not lift" is something that can be imagined, and therefore he is limited in that he can not create this thing.

Me: Okay, now we are going, I think, beyond simple Omnipotence (all-power-ful) to something more. Logical impossibilities aren't a limit in power so much as in reason. For instance it is one thing to say that a man can not run faster than the speed of sound, or even light - that's "impossible." But with infinite power at one's disposal it might be at lest potentially possible, at the very least it is not ruled out through reason alone. But to say that one can not simultaneously be both a bachelor and married, is more that simply impossible, its "logically impossible." NO amount of power (no, not even infinite) would make it otherwise. Because the two terms contradict.

But I see what you are saying here, so we will insert a new term, let's call it Omnipotent*. That star denoting that we are talking about a 'power' which can even transcend the logical impossibility barrier.

Re-frame the question for me.

IF: Okay; "Can an Omnipotent* being create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it?"

ME: Yes.

IF: Ah, but you see that answer fails as well:

If he can create a stone that he can not lift, then there too is a limit - he can create this time, but he can not lift it: Limited therefore NOT omnipotent - omnipotence is logically impossible!

ME: I will get to that last, because it IS interesting, but first:

You are once again mistaken. I will spell out my answer:

Yes he can create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it, and he can also lift it.

I will spell that out more clearly because it is the key:

He can create the stone, which he cannot lift AND can lift!

IF: But that's just stupid! It's gibberish! He can and can't lift it?! Crazy talk.

ME: Indeed. But could you be more precise, more robust in your argument there? Carefully explain the problem you have with it. (I'm trying not to lead and beg the question here.)

IF: I don't know what to say. Your answer was nonsense, and just impossible!

ME: Right. You see, I want to help you out here, what you are saying is that my answer is "nonsense" by which you mean non-sensical, or "Irrational/illogical." Correct?

IF: Ah yes.

ME: In other words when you say "impossible," you mean not simply (as we went through above) physically impossible, but LOGICALLY impossible.

IF: Exactly.

ME: This is good, now we have that we can see how this is. The problem of course is that "Cannot lift" and "can lift" contradict one another. Thus we have the concern:

The answer violates the logical law of non-contradiction!

IF: Right - so it fails.

ME: For an Omnipotent being perhaps, but we have here an Omnipotent* being! It's very premise is that it CAN do the logically impossible. So the answer stands.

So now we can get back to that interesting bit: The entire argument around the question is that An omnipotent (star or not) being creating and lifting a stone that it can not lift is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. So it is assumed that omnipotence is impossible and therefore there is no such thing.

BUT if we are assuming omnipotent means omnipotent*; that is a being that can do the logically impossible, then concluding that:

An Omnipotent* being can create a stone so heavy that he can not lift it, and he can lift it, is a logical impossibility. Is merely saying that:

A being that can do the logically impossible, being able to do the logically impossible, is logically impossible!

Which is of course a complete tautology, which adds nothing

Of course (as I said in the earlier discussion) invoking such a being, with not rational justification of course, means one is basically opting out of any rational discussion.

In conclusion:

If by Omnipotent one means the common idea of having infinite power: then the answer is "No" and no actual contradiction arises. Logically such a being is not ruled out.

But if one means Omnipotent*, that is one capable of even the logically impossible, then the argument posed in the question can not touch it. It IS logically impossible, but that is established as not being an impediment for the proposed being. In fact no argument could ever touch such a being (or any concept that included such a capacity) as Logic is as far as one can go. It is also important to note that any argument that includes such a caveat keeps it beyond the scope of reason and logic, thus keeping it completely unfalsifiable and rationally worthless - can't disprove it, no. But nor can one offer anything to support it either. and Reason dictates that no one should believe in such an unsupported, and possibly unsupportable, notion!

So what we end up with is:

Standard Omnipotence, logically possible.

Logical impossibility capable Omnipotence; which is where you have to push "Omnipotent being" to make the argument work, makes proving this to be logically impossible redundant. "It's logically impossible to do the logically impossible!"

So the argument does not disprove the possibility of an Omnipotent being. But it IS an excellent tool for exercising the critical thinking skills.

[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?

The bullet will get stuck in the armor and continuously trying to pierce thru where the armor with the same force stops the bullet. A complete stand still point.

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

i. he will be submerged in water forever (assuming he can't swim)...or until he drinks all the water there

ii. he will die and his body won't decompose

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

No, I do not accept. I may have accomplished the goal of such mission, but I have never accepted it to begin with.

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.

She has killed her so called grandmother and is now living in her time in another dimension.

In her original time/dimension, she just vanished.

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?

Coldness is not a quantifiable measure. It may still be 0 degrees tomorrow and feel twice as cold to some people simply because the weatherman forecasted so.

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

[nods]...NO

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

Headlights will go on but it will remain trapped in the bulb.

8. I conclude with this challenge:

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

Who said the name meant anything?

We can call tall people 'shorty' and small people 'big guy'.

[hugemonkey]

i suggest you read up on light, there are different speeds of light

light speed is an out dated and more generalized term

I assume that you mean light has different speeds in different mediums. Yes, I am aware of that. I even heard that they have used a sort of super dense crystal and lasers to slow down the speed of light to like 20mph. the point is that light has the same speed in the same medium regardless of the speed of the speeds of the objects passing each other. Light speed is the staring point you have to use a factor for the medium as well. Its consistency is why you get things like refraction.

[Guest]

Ok, I actually read a bunch of pages of posts.

#1. The *only* logically correct answer for this one is that they cannot both exist at the same time in the same universe. One by it's own existence will make the existence of the other a logical impossibility. If there is a bullet that can shoot through any barrier, then there cannot also be an absolutely bullet-proof armor. Likewise, if there is an absolutely bullet-proof armor, there cannot be a bullet that can shoot through any barrier. I've seen answers similar to this and kudos to you out there who posted them. You cannot even 'logically assume' that both objects exist.

#2 No. To drown means 'to die from liquid in the lungs' and if you were to have the eternal life liquid in you, well I take that to mean you will have eternal life and will not die, hence not drown.

#3 Yes, (or No). (no paradox, it doesn't matter what I say, either I fail on my mission or I don't).

#4. Not possible unless you accept the existence of parallel universes, or the girl kills her after her parents are born. Otherwise she would cease to exist, then how would she have went back in the first place. Then if she didn't go back in the first place, she would exist, and go back..

#5. 0 degrees in the Fahrenheit and Celsius scale does not mean the lowest temperature possible. You cannot do valid calculations with it. For this question to have any meaning you have to use an absolute scale, like the Kelvin scale with absolute zero. But since it is unlikely that any weatherman was talking in Kelvins, you have to assume either Fahrenheit or Celsius and convert. I'm in the US, so I'll assume Fahrenheit. Zero degrees Fahrenheit means 255 degrees Kelvin. Twice as cold means half as warm when you are talking about heat energy, so half 255 Kelvins = 127.5 = -230 degrees Fahrenheit. Yes, bring a sweater... I'm sure its not much better for Celsius, but I'll leave that calculation to you. It's the process that counts.

#6. I would say that you cannot answer yes or no and still be truthful, but I've seen a couple of posts on here that have convinced me that there is a loophole. I could say 'Well, I say no'. (It doesn't specify that the very next word I say has to be my answer). Cheesy, yes I know, but logically consistent.

#7. I am not a physics student, but it is an interest if mine, and from all I've read about Einstein and his special theory of relativity, it appears that the speed of light is constant for all observers, regardless of the speed of the observer. So if I'm in the car, the light would look like it was heading from me at the speed of light. (But my time would be frozen, enabling other observers to see the light go at the speed of light also.) Your light beam cannot go faster than the speed of light. So answers like c2 or c*2 are just wrong.

#8 I would have been stumped on this one and considered it a true unsolvable paradox depending on semantics, but the few posts from ADParker have convinced me, so I am in agreement. See above if you want to read them.

Take it easy, happy paradox hunting.

[Guest]

I have just waded through 41 pages of this thread, which has taken three hours, before submitting this post.

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?

As I remember it, the original question was “What would happen if an irrestistible force met an immovable object?” Some wit replied “An indescribable catastrophe.”

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?

The Weather Channel is merely incorrect, which, as we all know, is not a rare event. To a physicist, which I am, the actual statement is capable of valid interpretation. If I were in a cryogenic laboratory with an object in an ice/water envirenment at 0ºC, and were about to investigate its behaviour at – 136.575ºC tomorrow, then I would be fully entitled to say “It will be twice as cold tomorrow.”.

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

This question is not as silly as it may sound (sorry question poser and those who have replied.) Furthermore it is perfectly describable in terms of a thought experiment, a perfectly valid procedure in Theoretical Physics.

For a light beam travelling in the opposite direction, both car and the light emitted from the headlamps would be travelling towards it with the speed of light.

The driver of the car would see the beam from his headlamps disappearing from the car at the speed of light. The difference in the two viewpoints form an extreme case of the time dilatation effect of Special Relativity (yes, the word is “dilatation”, not dilation. It comes from the Latin verb dilato, dilatare, dilatatus sum.)

Please note that there is no necessity for the the car actually being accelerated to the speed of light, with the difficulties of approaching an infinite mass. These ideas are irrelevencies.

[Guest]

For number 5

Temperature is a measurement of the amount of molecular kinetic energy in a substance. To say that it is twice as cold is to say that there is half as much kinetic energy. At 0 Kelvin there is no kinetic energy so it is a useful tool for directly measuring the amount of molecular kinetic energy. If it is 0 degrees Fahrenheit then it is 255 Kelvin. If it is twice as cold, it would therefore be 127.5 Kelvin or -230 degrees Fahrenheit. I certainly hope the weatherman was wrong.

As for number 4, I have another question. If the girl were to go back and kill her father before she was born, and her mother remarried, would she be born as someone else or would someone else be born?

I thought Kelvin measures amounts of thermal energy, and that even at 0 degrees Kelvin there is still kinetic energy and movement, although it is very, very minimal.

[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?

Let's say that the bullet is made of (hypothetically) nothing. Therefore when the bullet hits the armour (by the way, not just any barrier), the nothing gets through it.

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

Yes.

just dive in and it will overflow from you as well.

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

Yes, it is probably protected as a historical site and I do not want to be stuck with a tourist trap.

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 why murders are not taken out of the now, and never are murders sent to the past.

time travel is not something that mankind can do by their own will

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?

The temperature will be the temperature and the Weather Channel will be wrong grammatically and scientifically as usual. It is more curious, when the Weather Channel gets the forecast correct.

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

Truthfully, no

so tired that this is really funny

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

If you are in a car going the speed of light, you are already and have always been, from the place you began, light and as such do not experience time and cannot turn on your headlights.

Which speed of light?

You will be able to see the objects that are in front of you relatively close to your frame of reference (may also include quantum phase)

The speed of light is a small part of what is light as a whole. If you believe the speed of light is equal to 299,792,458 meters per second absolutely relative to all matter, I contend that you have put too much trust in the Scientific Establishment and you are easily distracted by shiny objects and statistics that declare elitisms.

8. He concluded with this challenge:

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

If this is by chance, since it happened, there is no free will. Causality and chance of any event only have ‘it is happening’ or ‘it is not happening’, it being everything and probability is nothing. However, The Creator did begin the heavens and the earth and all that is in them, including that elusive something called Light. The Creator did create mankind as a man and a woman and created free will for them. Now that is a Powerful Creator and there is a lesson in the meaning of His name, YHVH (letter association Hebrew to American English), The Self-existent One, “The Great ‘I AM’!”

Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God

Edited October 7, 2009 by Dawid

[Guest]

With regards to number 7, that is a special relativity question, to move at the speed of light you must be light, and cannot then emit light. Putting that aside... the light will, as observed by the passengers in the car, move away from the car at the speed of light. Whether you're using classical, special, or general relativity you should still arrive at this answer, it differs if you consider some observer moving at a relatively different speed, classical relativity predicts the light moving at twice the speed of light, special pedicts the car and light moving at the same speed (but that time and distance are different for this observer).

.

Edited October 11, 2009 by Triddle

[Guest]

http://brainden.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/excl.gif

that really made my mind go bonkers

[Guest]

#1 Is easy. The bullet penetrates half the armour the first millisecond. The second millisecond :?) it halves its velocity and only penetrates half of what is left of the armour. In the third millisecond the bullet halves its speed again and cuts trough half the remainder of the armour. If it keeps doing this the bullet is unstoppable and the armour is unimpregnable.

[Guest]

2) I man can not drown in a fountain of eternal life, as long as the fountain's powers prevent him from dying. He can, on the other hand have a near drowning experience.

4) It is my personal belief that Time is not so easily destroyed by simple paradoxes and would heal itself around it. it is possible that some number of timelines would be formed, one with the girl carrying on in the past (her grandmother dead), one with her never being born, one with her never going back, etc. and that in the one with her still existing, but her grandmother being dead, she would be granted eternal life, for she exists without a beginning so how can she have an end, she's come full circle. (as is a major plot point in the Chuck Palahniuk novel "Rant")

5) This is actually a subjective question, First we must know when things are considered entering into the realm of cold. For some, this is in the 60s Fahrenheit (yes, yes, I live in the U.S. and we, unlike the rest of the world, have not progressed into a reasonable measurement system), and it would be the difference between the point of entering cold and the current temperature that the temperature would drop again

Think on that and be dismayed

[Guest]

Hmm

#4 For arguments sake: time travel is possible.

First of all if you travel back in time; your past present ceases, or you've created a new dimension.

With the former: The future present you which has travelled back in time has consequently destroyed your past present. You kill your ancestor, you continue to exist, because your timeline existed. Your timeline is past, and your past is present.

#5 Measure the point from cold to 0 and double it. 20 degrees is warm. 15 degrees is cool. 14 degrees is cold.

... Just my thoughts

Edited November 27, 2009 by Conbobulo

[Guest]

1. It depends on what thing was made first. If the bullet was made first, the bullet will not peirce the armour, but if the armour was made first, the bullet would peirce it.

2. As there is no such fountain, the man would not be in it in the first place, therefore he could not possibly drown in it.

3. You would say no. That way it does not matter whether you complete it or not - nothing can possibly happen to you.

4. It depends. If her mother had already been born, or was so close to be being born that she most probably will live, then it will obviously affect her relationship with her mother and grandmother, but she would still be born. If her grandmother was not pregnant with her mother or had already had her then it will be a continuous loop. Nobody would find out about it though because the girl would never be able to tell anyone what she had done.

5. As the weather usually covers a large area of land, the weather man/lady was probably talking about a different part of land to where you live. If she was, then perhaps she was mistaken about what she was saying.

6. No. The NEXT word i will say will be next. It depends on how you read the question.

7. There will never possibly be a car that goes the speed of light. If there was then people would be able to reach place incredibly quickly, and the whole world would eventually die due to the emmissions given off by this vehicle. If it was invented, you would not be able to see the light in front of you, and the light energy would be absorbed by the vehicle, as it is going so fast.

8. Although i do not believe in god, I would have to agree with CPOTTING. If the God Almighty decalres that he/she cannot lift a stone, then so be it. Somebody that powerful would not be able to go back on their promises.

I am thirteen years of age by the way, and that's saying something... xx

[Guest]

By the way, time travel does exist. It is punishable by death if a being is allowed to go back in time, due to the danger of creating such time loop, where a being prevented their own birth, therefore beginning the continuous chain of events... xx

[Guest]

for #6 say maybe

[Guest]

For Number 1: Nothing happens its simple Bullet hits armor, bullet flatens out while making a incomplete whole in the armor causing the armor to

[Guest]

For Number 1: Nothing happens its simple Bullet hits armor, bullet flatens out while making a incomplete whole in the armor causing the armor to

bend and bouncing the bullet.

For Number 2: Yes he will drown feeling pain but never dying.

For Number 4: Light can not go backwards, so if she did kill her grandmother it would be in ANOTHER dimension which would result her not being born

in THAT dimension.

For Number 5: Not enough information provided degrees in what? kelvin? Celsius? farheniett?

For Number 7: Two objects in the same speed are constant.. then I would say you will see light in its original form.

For the rest: I guess it would go into a infinity loop.

[Guest]

this question, if possibe would cause a rift in time because once u killed ur grandmother u never existed meaning she never died meaning u were born to go back in time to kill her so time would be in an infinite loop forever always repeating the same space of time.

not unless you kill the grandmother after she gave birth

[Guest]

1: Depends.

If it's cold, the bullet won't perform as fine as it could, thus failing the attempt.

If the distance increases over the effectiveness range of the bullet, said bullet would still fail to pierce the armor.

The bullet misses/ricochets.

There is no weapon to shoot such a bullet.

The bullet hits a weak spot(joint) on the armor.

The bullet is a dud.

2: If it hypothetically existed:

Yes and NO.

Yes: He'd be like Prometheus, drowning and just when he's about to die, he'd get better.

No: The two would neutralize one-another.

You'd have to prove such a thing through experimentation.

3:Answer:"Accept what?"

if replied : "the mission", answer "No."

Or:

"I need more information to answer."

Or:

find excuse to leave.

4:

I:There'd be no existence.

The moment the girl kills her grandmother she(the girl)(hypothetically) ceases to exist(provided she's not her true sibling), not "before" killing her. Grandmother has no chance left to get pregnant so the girl dies together with her grandmother. That's it.

Or:

II The girl changes. Why? if her grandmother gets killed before giving birth to the girl's mother, the girl's father would marry another woman giving birth to another child with half the girl's chromosomes.

5:It's been answered already, convert the temperature to either Celsius or Fahrenheit.

6:or

7:the bulb of light would simply lit itself up, without traveling any further. The only moment when the lights would "lead the way" would be when the car lowers the speed.

8: Is not capable of lifting and cannot pick up are two different things.

Anyway, I don't believe in God.

Another answer would be God is not almighty, for if he was and he permits evil on earth then he isn't all-loving. All-loving and almighty contradict each other.

Another would be define what "almighty" means.

Simply put, if it exceeded his powers he isn't able to create it.For He is "almighty" but not omni-creating.

[Guest]

for number 4 when she kills her grandmother, she wouldn't have existed, and her grandmother would have existed and so would her. Wouldn't her grandmother marry someone else???"

[Guest]

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?

Won't it be clearer is it is:

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

[Guest]

1. impossible. they cant both exist at the same time. so this will never happen. end of story. then of course theres my friends theory. they both explode and the world ends. lol.

2. drown- verb: die from being submerged in water, getting water into the lungs, and asphyxiating.

therefore, no. he could not drown, because he could not die. he could still get water in his lungs, but it would not kill him. thats my theory anyways.

3. i liked my friends response to this. she kindof just stared at me. lol. so just dont answer.

4. this one kindof completely confused me. so i will again use my friends response. her first response was "DONT MESS WITH TIME! ITS SCARY AS SH*T!" lol. then after thinking about it, she said "its a mean cycle of death/no death. for a split second she is everything and nothing at the same time." so basically, it would go in a circle. she would be alive, then she wouldnt, then she would, then she wouldnt, ect. ect.

5. this has been said many times. change it to which ever measurement its not (celsius/fahrenheit). then double that or divide it by 2 depending on weather it is negative of positive. once again, there is also my friends method. say that 0 is about -1 (totally cheating, i know), then say twice as cold as -1 is -2. so about -2 degrees.

6. say nope, or some other word that means no. or another friend of mine replied "maybe?" lol. that works too.

7. ok, disclamer: i know nothing about physics. so here is my best guess. they also travel the speed of light, but a few feet in front of the car. therefore, they still travel in front of the car.

8. well i say god isnt almighty. my personal theory. but for arguments sake, lets define almighty. adjective: having unlimited power. now lets define power. noun: possession of controlling influence. therefore, power does not equal strength. therefore, he could create a stone he could not lift. easy. ok, this needs another disclamer. all my definitions come from a cruddy internet dictionary. so dont blame me if they are wrong. lol.

Edited February 27, 2010 by actressgirl

[Guest]

for #7, the time travel one: we actually looked at this in my physics class when we were learning about relativity. For the person in the car, the light from the headlight would be going the speed of light and be getting further away from him at that speed. However, for the person watching from the sidelines (whose not going the speed of light) the light would never leave the car's headlights, as the car and the light would be traveling the same speed, relative to the observer. It's a very interesting concept. Relative to the person in the car, the light is traveling at the speed of light, but relative to the person watching, both the car and the light are traveling the same speed.

[Guest]

for #7, the time travel one: we actually looked at this in my physics class when we were learning about relativity. For the person in the car, the light from the headlight would be going the speed of light and be getting further away from him at that speed. However, for the person watching from the sidelines (whose not going the speed of light) the light would never leave the car's headlights, as the car and the light would be traveling the same speed, relative to the observer. It's a very interesting concept. Relative to the person in the car, the light is traveling at the speed of light, but relative to the person watching, both the car and the light are traveling the same speed.

Exactly. Except if traveling AT The speed of light, no time for the traveler would pass at all (in any way; they would not age or anything) so they would not experience anything (couldn't even turn the lights on at that speed, because no time would pass for them in which to act!)

At speeds approaching the speed of light; for the observer the light WOULD travel out from their vehicle at the speed of light relative to them. For the stationary observer it would very slowly proceed beyond the car (the car moving at near the speed of light, the light at that speed, so only slightly faster) The apparent discrepancy is solved by realizing that the two observers are experiencing time at different rates.

This is relativity; individual observers (and any object) lives its own time flow; the passage of time is relative to the observer (If I am traveling at a great speed then my time, while experienced by me in the same way, is different that a stationary individual, or at any speed other than my own.)

Actually this is because anything (including any observer) IS always traveling at a constant 'speed': The speed of light in spacetime. If one travels at some speed in space, to maintain this constant speed in spacetime, this speed is subtracted from one's speed in time to balance out.