Think about these

[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?

1a. The bullet will find that the armour is not a barrier because the armour will avoid the bullet.

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

2a. Repeatedly - Drown is not the same as die.

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

3a. No, problem solved.

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.

4a. Depends if you consider your existence today dependant on your existence yesterday which obviously you don't: someone sent back in time has no existence the day before when they arrive. Therefore the existence of the girl is independant of the fact that she was born.

4b. You can't creates something from nothing, the total of the universe that the girl arrives in must be the same as it was before she arrived. As you are taking nothing from the universe she has left and adding nothing to the universe she arrives in (talk a bit about girl(a) girl(b) and grandmother(a) for ages and discuss if it's possible to have a copy of an original for a while but have only so much time to spend answering this

4c. The girls mother was born before the girl killed her grandmother, ergo sum...

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?

5a. Half as hot as today.

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

6a. A proper paradox!

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

7a. Others have answered this very well, it depends which observer you are.

8. I conclude with this challenge:

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

8a. Presuming you are speaking of a Judeo-crhistian god, of course. Regardless of the meta-physical laws to which you allude the answer is yes, I seem to remember it took faith to move mountains not a god. A better question might be can a god create something that he can not destroy?

1. A singularity event!

2. If you must "drink" of the fountain of eternal life to attain immortality, then technically you could drown in it (how ironic though). I think drowning occurs when oxygen supply to is stopped due to a liquid entering the lungs. So all the man has to do is open his nose and close his mouth!

3. No. Mission accomplished!

5. -136.575 Degrees C or -213.835 Degrees F.

6. Write down "yes" then SAY no!! or vice versa!

7. If I remember my relativity quite well then the value of 'c' is independent of observer! Theoretically, you (and the car) would have infinite mass and experience infinite time dilation.

[Guest]

So you're saying there is something the Omnipotent God cannot do? (He's incapable of breaking a promise)... another contradiction.

look at my post above. things that are impossible by nature simply cannot be done; it doesn't render His omnipotence invalid. God is all powerful, but that doesn't mean that He can perform anything that we can string together in words.

EDIT: grammar goof

Edited October 14, 2010 by LJayden

[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?

I actually don't think either can exist. Basically, the bullet would have to be infinitely piercing and the armor would have to be infinitely resistant. However, by definition, infinity in unattainable.

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

This one depends which definition you use for drowning. The question would imply that the intended definition is to die from lack of oxygen due to submersion in water. In that case, the eternal life feature of the fountain should keep you alive. Extensive testing would need to be done to to determine the effects of trying to drown someone in this fountain. Alternately, we can simply claim that a fountain of eternal life does not exist and therefore it is not possible to drown in it.

3. Your mission is to not accept the mission. Do you accept? Doesn't matter, does it?

Accepting a mission does not mean you will succeed and accomplishing the goal of the mission does not require acceptance of the mission. So, it does not really matter how you answer. You can accept the mission, thereby failing it, or you decline the mission, thereby meeting the objective.

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.

First we must assume that time travel is possible, which I do not personally believe. Then, we need to understand how events occur in time. If there is only one time line and traveling through time equates to hoping to a different point on that line, then this paradox would cause a potential loop where every other iteration the girl was born, traveled back in time and killed her grandmother, thus creating an iteration where she does not exist to go back and kil her grandmother. Alternately, events could all occur in separate streams. So, the girl would skip over to a different time stream where her grandmother exists, kill her there and then there would be to girl born in that time stream. Then the girl could live out her life in the time stream where she killed her grandmother or she could return to her own time stream and take her grandmother out to diner.

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?

My interpretation of this would require a defined comfortable temperature, say 70F. A measure of how cold it is would be determined by how far below 70F the temperature fell. If the temperature today was 0f and tomorrow was expected to be twice as cold, then I would expect it to be -70F. Of course, there are some major flaws with this approach. Everyone would have their own comfortable temperature, so the statement would mean different things to different people. More than likely, the meteorologist who made the prediction would be basing this on their own comfortable temperature. Also, using my example, this would require a huge change in temperature.

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

I like the answer above using a different, less obvious answer. I would go with "probably not".

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

I have not gotten to the point in physics to really understand what would happen here. My intuition tells me that the light particles would be blasted out of the bulbs at roughly twice the speed of light, but would quickly decelerate to the normal speed of light. However, I have read a bit on the theories and it would seem that light does not play by the same rules.

8. I conclude with this challenge:

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

My answer to this is very similar to my answer to the first question. Infinity does not actually exist. So, God Almighty can not really be infinitely powerful and can not create a rock which is infinitely heavy.

I think number five gets into the whole string theory and quantum mechanics and in the end, None of that may or may not be true, so we have to take a step back and assume that everything is happening at its own distinct time which may not be true.

[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?

Hypothesis will be broken when they meet.

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

Depends on which mission pays me more

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

Still, i wont see a thing !!

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

nope

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?

Depends on yesterday's temp. Suppose it was 5C yday, then today it is 0C - what it meant is, it will be 5X2 = 10C more cooler. So it gonna be -10C.

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

Which is exactly you. <no pun>

[Guest]

As for number 7 : My point of view is the light can't work .dark the same as before .

As for number 4: Maybe the girl will disappear at the same time .

To number 3: for Example .I can't write any word ,which is paradox actually .So do it.

[Guest]

8. Truly, this is an absurd question; I mean it with no offense, of course, but by following the denotation of "absurd." We must consider two manners of phrasing this question:

-----> 1) Can God create a boulder he cannot lift?

-----> 2) Can a boulder so large be created?

One may wonder at the difference; aren't we just arguing semantics? Hardly! The first question regards God's abilities: certainly, it would be blasphemy to accept such a proposition that "God cannot do" something. We turn our attention to the second question: herein lies the actual limitation. Certainly, it is impossible for such a boulder to exist; the boulder itself does not have the ability of existing as such. Were the second question of the prior "true", then certainly God "could" create it; however, since the boulder is limited in its very ontology, such a feat cannot be done.

[Guest]

Let's put it this way:

God can create the largest rock possible.

God can lift the largest rock possible.

[Akriti]

for the forth,

if she kills her grandmother :1)the spouse can marry someone else

2)she will disappear <hypothetical>

[Guest]

#4 I beleve that one of two things would occur either she would time travel into a parrallel universe and when she went back to her present it would be in that parrallel universe, so she would be in a time where she never existed before. Or when she killed her grandmother she would never exist so her grandmother would give birth to one of her parents and they would produce that girl who would kill her grandmother once again. All of this would go into a loop for eternity unless it was stopped by another timetravler, and everyone else whould move forward in time with the exception of the grandmother, the girl's parent who is blood related to the grandmother, and the girl

[Guest]

what i think the answer to #1 is that the bullet would hover in air; the bullet can penitrate anything but the wall would be inpenitratable, so thus the bullet would hover in mid air.

that answer to #2 no, if the man where to drown in the foutain, the water would bring him back to life, and then he can never die, he would just feel what it feels like to drown alive.

the answer to #3; this one is tricky but what i think it is, is that you dont do anything, so then you accept the mission in not accepting the mission.

the answer to #4 the girl is nolonger existant in that part of time, when she went back in time she split the time line, because time still moves on, she just went back to a time and killed her grandmother, but if she does that then she is nolonger existant so then she never killed her grandmother, so then since her grandmother was not killed the girl was born.

the answer to #5; zero, anything times 0 is 0.

the answer to #6; yes, since the "next word you say will be 'no'"

the answer to #7; also tricky, but since you ar going at the speed of light and you turn on your lights, you will not see light since you are going at the same speed, however other people can see you as light and the headlights as light too.

the answer to #8 idk

[Guest]

havent you guys ever seen family guy? killing yourself if you go back in time doesn't mean you don't exist in the future, it just means that there's no longer 2 existences of yourself <!-- s;) --><!-- s;) -->

Was that a joke or did you not realise that made no sense?

P.S. If the Answer is you didn't realise family guy IS a comedy

[Guest]

#2 who said there was water in The Fountain of Life?

[Guest]

7. you cannot travel at the speed of light. time itself will slow down because atomic particles cannot decay nearly as quick as the speed of light, matter will become infinitely heavier and dense.

[Guest]

7. you cannot travel at the speed of light. time itself will slow down because atomic particles cannot decay nearly as quick as the speed of light, matter will become infinitely heavier and dense.

I'm sorry? Where did you get this stuff from? "Particles cannot decay as quick"? "Matter will become heavier"?

Spacetime is connected ("relative") such that time slows as speed increases (and vice versa.) Until the ultimate point where all 'movement' in spacetime is in space and not time: The speed of light. (On the flip side; being complete stationary in space means one is moving at the maximum /speed' through time!)

But not because of anything to do with matter, but just to do with the nature of spacetime itself.

I have never heard anything remotely resembling the things you are claiming. If correct, I would most welcome being educated on the subject.

[Guest]

#7

The lights will function as normal.

To understand this you have to understand the fundamental tenet of relativistic physics, which is that all frames of reference are valid. Another important point that plays off of that is that the car is stationary in the car's frame of reference.* Speed is relative to an outside point. So from whose frame of reference is the car going the speed of light?

If an outside observer saw a car moving past at the speed of light (assuming that he was capable of seeing it despite the fact it was moving something like 300,000 km per second and all other complications) and the car turned on its headlights, then the light emanating from the headlights would be moving at the same speed (relative to the outside observer) as the car and would not extend past its source, so it would not be visible**

*It is impossible for you to prove that you are moving if your speed is constant. This can be demonstrated by driving in a car at a fixed rate of speed, say 60mph, and dropping a coin from your hand to your lap. The coin does not move backwards (relative to you) at 60 mph. It drops straight down (relative to you). However, since the coin's frame of reference is equally as valid as yours, it is also 100% correct to say that the coin remained stationary and everything else in the universe moved up.

** According to relativistic physics, the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference. I am only an amateur physicist, but I find this concept a little odd since time and space have been shown to not be constant. Since speed is a measurement of distance over time, the speed of light cannot constant. I suppose you could state that the relationship between space-time and the motion of photons is always constant... but it seems odd that only photons have this relationship.

[Guest]

For number 1, the bullet and the armour would have to be made of the same material if each of them were supposedly indestructible - if you think about it being able to smash through something without being broken is exactly the same as not breaking when something tries to smash through you.

And so the bullet and the armour would react in the exact same way as if another bullet and another armour made of the same material e.g. steel were pitted against each other.

[Guest]

nr 1 was already answered by Sammy Davis Jr.

When an irresistible force (the bullet)

Such as you.

Meets an old immovable object like me.(the armour)

You can bet as sure as you live.

Something gotta give

Something gotta give

Something gotta give.

[Guest]

#1 Two parallel universes will be created; one where the bullet penetrates the armour, and the other where the armour stops the bullet. I challenge you to make either of those, though.

[Guest]

#3 "Your mission is not to accept the mission. Do you accept?" Imagine that there are two missions, so I accept the first mission ("Your MISSION is not...") but i dont accept the second mission ("...not to accept the MISSION..."). And #1, i think that the bullet WOULD pierce into the armor but only half way, there, the bullet went through the aror, but yet, nothing has went through the armor!

[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)!

All right, I've given these some thought and here's my answer.

1. In order to honestly say that a bullet can pierce through anything,you must first test it against every material. Likewise for the armor. Since these have not been tested against each other yet, they cannot be truthfully labeled as they have been. Only once they are tested against each other can the stronger one be determined.

2. This depends on the fountain. There are three obvious cases, and while I'm sure there are more, I will only look at these three.

The fountain causes people to stop aging. In this case, it would do nothing about drowning. Therefore, you could drown in it.

The fountain causes people to be immune from physical harm. In this case it's debatable, but in my opinion the body still requires sustenance, and air is a form of sustenance. Therefore, again, you can still drown. If you think drowning counts as physical harm, then you can't drown. It's a little ambiguous, but not a paradox.

The fountain simply makes you immortal. Unconditionally immortal. You cannot die. In this case, you obviously don't drown.

All in all, it depends on what the fountain does to you.

3. This is completely different. It's simply circular logic. Therefore there is no proper answer to the question.

4. So the girl starts in timeline A. When she travels back in time, she moves into an earlier point in timeline A. By changing past events, she skews timeline A into timeline B. She is then stuck in timeline B with no way to directly leave. She can only travel forward and backward in B. She no longer exists in timeline A, after she travels back in time. She can get back to timeline A by going back in time to before the split and stopping herself from causing the split.

5. This depends on the temperature you classify as warm. If you call 65 degrees warm, then "twice as cold" will be -65 degrees. "Twice as cold" means that the distance between the current temperature and "warm" will double.

6. It will not. Alternatively, you could simply say something unrelated BEFORE answering the question. In this case, the answer is probably "no".

7. This is not a paradox, but depends on the laws of physics. I admit I'm not very familiar with what happens at the speed of light, so I don't know the answer, but I would assume the light simply stays at about the same spot as your headlights.

8. Okay, first, I would say that there is no God. Under the assumption that there is a God, one might say you cannot claim to comprehend the ways of God. While I don't believe in a God, I don't think this disproves his existence. Here's my reasoning. God is omnipotent, right? (if you don't think so, this "paradox" is irrelevant anyways.) So he can do anything. He can create this rock. Since he can't lift it, the idea is that he's not omnipotent, right? WRONG. God has not created this rock! It doesn't prove he's not omnipotent, because it doesn't exist! If he were to create it, he would lose his omnipotence. BUT he hasn't created it, so he remains omnipotent. God is omnipotent, therefore he has the power to cause himself to lose his omnipotence.

[Guest]

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

The original phrasing was different than posted in this forum.

By the original phrasing, then I am free to accept. I simply do not know what my mission is, I only know what my mission is not.

"Your mission is not ________", but just because it's not my mission doesn't mean I can't do it. Whatever is filled in the blank is something that the mission isn't. The phrasing indicates that the mission itself is not "to accept the mission", but rather something else.

Now, if the phrasing were: "Your mission is to not accept the mission. Do you accept?", I could either refuse the mission, or accept the mission and in doing so fail it. (In this case, "Your mission is to _________" is the correct format, meaning whatever follows is my mission).

[Guest]

#5: There are two main lines of thought here.

First, statistically speaking, most temperature is not an integer scale variable, and thus cannot be multiplied. There are discrete unit differences, but since there is no absolute 0 for celcius and fahrenheit (i.e., 0 degrees is not an absence of heat), 20 degrees is not twice as "temperatur-ey" as 10 degrees. However, if you use an appropriate scale, such as Kelvin, then 0 means 0. There is 0 heat in the system.

This is, of course, assuming "colder" is directly related to the amount of heat in a system. "Cold" also refers to perception of temperature, which is both relative and non-linear. If you put one hand on a warm surface, and one on a cold surface... then place both of them on the same neutral surface... your one hand will perceive cold and the other will perceive warmth. Additionally, perceptual systems generally work on a logarithmic magnitude estimation scale, so that a doubling of the intensity of a stimulus does not equal a doubling of the perception of that stimulus, based on Steven's Power Law. For example, an increase in whole-body cold at uncomfortable levels by 1 unit results in approximately 1.7 units of perceived increase.

[Guest]

your headlights would be ahead of you still, because the starting point would be before your car, where the head lights are

[Guest]

1.) let's say true=false (also applies to 8.) what will happen? Well, anything can happen if 1=0, because falsehood implies anything.

2.) Depends if you have to drink the water for it to have any effect. If yes, you can drown in it even before it makes your life eternal, because while drowning you don't ingest (drink) the water, you breathe it. If touching the water is sufficient to make your life eternal, you shouldn't die from drowning in it either, because even if you fill your lungs with water and stop breathing for a couple of minutes, you won't die instantly.

4.) alternate timelines

7.) Speaking of speed is only meaningful if you specify what is it relative to. Coincidentally all cars on earth go the speed of light relative to something in the universe and their headlights work just fine.

By the way even if it was possible for you to accelerate to the speed of light relative to most of the surrounding objects (earth, sun, etc) and you'd turn on the headlights, you wouldn't observe anything unusual regarding your car and the headlights and the light. However, you would see all other surrounding objects quickly disintegrate, because you would observe their passage of time accelerate to infinity. When I'm thinking about it you'd probably also see everything shrink to a singularity

[Guest]

For number 8

God can create a rock that he can't lift in the state he is in but he can change himself to a state in which he can lift the rock. This means that he has created a rock he can't lift but he has also lifted it.