Think about these

[Guest]

regarding the original wording, the question (which is not a question - it's a challenge) is put to God/supernatural entity or am I missing something - actually i sort of did because i put an answer in previously.

Yeah, the way the OP worded it is a challenge, as you say; to God no less But really a challenge to believers (theists) to explain the apparent paradox.

I actually derives from the classic question that I posed, simply put another way.

Duh Puck I'm glad you got it. Did you see the trouble I had with those guys in that link I added? Funny that they were atheists, unlike your good self, as well

[Guest]

regarding the original wording, the question (which is not a question - it's a challenge) is put to God/supernatural entity or am I missing something - actually i sort of did because i put an answer in previously.

Heh. When I said "that question" I was referring to the way AD worded it: "Could God create a stone so heavy that even he could not lift it?" That's the way I've usually heard it asked, but you are right that the OP posed it as more of a paradoxical challenge.

[Guest]

8. This pseudo question is a logical contradiction. The statement pits one attribute of God against another. There is no use in asking if one is stronger than oneself. There are other things God can’t do; like make a square circle.

[Guest]

For the one with the bullet and the armour.

Technology has it the the bullet will be created, then the armour will be created to stop the bullet, then a bullet will be made made to penetrate the armour, then armour will be made to stop the bullet and so on forever and ever.

[Guest]

Here are my answers to these questions, as I skillfully apply the tactics of rigorous logic and "because I said so":

_______________________________________________

1) Let's say there is a bullet which can shoot through any barrier. Let's also say there is an absolutely bullet-proof armor which no object can penetrate. What will happen if such a bullet hits such an armor?

The bullet quantum-tunnels to the other side of the armor.

Alternately, the bullet pushes the armor out of the way.

Really, though, those two things are mutually exclusive and cannot exist in the same universe. So the correct answer is: the universe implodes.

_______________________________________________

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

I'd say "yes-ish". He'd be eternally "drowning", but he'd never die from it. So depends on how you define "drown"

_______________________________________________

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

No. That mission is too hard. If I happen to accidentally fulfill the mission's objectives while I'm busy not doing it, Bonus! Just because I rejected a mission doesn't mean I have a mission to avoid doing the mission.

_______________________________________________

4) A girl goes into the past and kills her Grandmother. Since her Grandmother is dead, the girl was never born. If she were never born, she never killed her grandmother.

The girl was adopted and never told so. Problem fixed!

_______________________________________________

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?

Assuming it is 0 degrees Celsius, -136.575 Celcius (half the distance from absolute zero to 0 Celsius).

Alternately, the weatherman is just wrong as always.

_______________________________________________

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

No. The next word I typed was no, but I'm going to say banana now because I feel like it.

_______________________________________________

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

well, the light obviously can't outrace the car, so the light will just end up being absorbed by the back of the headlight casing (even if it's reflective, it still absorbs some light, and will eventually absorb it all.) Your car will heat up because of it and eventually explode, at which point the headlights probably aren't going to be working.

_______________________________________________

8) I conclude with this challenge:

Let the God Almighty create a stone, which he can not pick up!

Sure thing. He just makes a rock and says "I'm not going to pick it up". Since He's never wrong, He's guaranteed to never pick it up (which is pretty much the same thing as cannot pick it up).

Alternately, he just makes a rock and then obliterates it immediately. Now he can't pick up it because it isn't there, although he could make a new rock to pick up.

_______________________________________________

[Guest]

1. the bullet dents the armour

4.adopted

6.Yes, it will not be no

7.headlights turn on but does not light up anything in front of the car

[Guest]

Since 0o is an arbitrary value used on the Fahrenheit scale.  Since 0 x 2 = 0, determining twice the degree of cold using this scale of measurement would be useless.  You have to convert 0F to ?C - I don't know the formula for converting  Fahrenheit to Centigrade - and multiply that figure by 2 to come up with an accurate reading.

[Guest]

Since 0o is an arbitrary value used on the Fahrenheit scale.  Since 0 x 2 = 0, determining twice the degree of cold using this scale of measurement would be useless.  You have to convert 0F to ?C - I don't know the formula for converting  Fahrenheit to Centigrade - and multiply that figure by 2 to come up with an accurate reading.

No, you fell for the joke in the question. The already given answer of O^o being an arbitrary value (freezing point of water at sea level in the Celsius scale) means that the only way to get 1/2 that temperature is NOT to convert it to another arbitrary scale...

By the way the conversion is C= 5/9*(F-32)

The other way is F=9/5*C +32

but look to a non arbitrary scale; The Kelvin scale, for which O^o has a real meaning - Absolute zero; the point where there is no molecular movement (which is what heat really is) whatsoever. This is zero kelvin (0^oK). (Or you could use the Rankine scale scale, as that uses absolute zero as zero degrees as well)

So if the temp this morning is 0 kelvin (then we all died, but never mind) 1/2 that is 0 kelvin

If it is 0 ^oC then we convert that into Kelvin. this is 273.15 K, so 1/2 that = 136.58^oK or -136.58^oC

If it is 0 ^oF then we convert that into Kelvin. this is 459.67 K, so 1/2 that = 229.84^oK or -229.84^oF

[Guest]

7 - If you were going at the speed of light, according to einstein's equation e=mc^2 and the accompanying theories and laws of physics involved, you would become pure energy, as would your car, therefore you and your car would be light, and therefore you could not turn on the headlights, as there would be no headlights....

[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)I believe the bullet would partially penetrate... however, the armor would partially protect. They would both get an "F" though...

2)He can drown in the fountain if the *believes* he is drowning and his brain accepts the fact that he's dead... he will forever be a vegetable to float around in the Aqua de Vita.

3)I'll get around to it, Jeopardy! is almost on.

4)Its ok, really, after running through that scenario so many times, she is bound to be a stillbirth and will never again harm the Space-Time continuum. I saw it on TV, so it *must* be real

5)Its either going to be 0 degrees, or they're wrong-- chances are they'll be wrong as they have yet to tell me the future accurately.

6)Probably not.

7)Light will either go 186,000 M/s (roughly) or 372,000 M/s ... in either scenario, you can't really *see* it, and besides, the whole "nothing, not even light can exceed the cosmic speed limit" will probably keep the latter from happening anyhows, but it would be cool indeed.

8)She did, its called "The Universe" if God moves it, where would it go?

With that said, I must state that I am not really all that smart, I just tried to say a bunch of very confusing things which, hopefully, nobody understood in hopes of being seen as "Wonderfully Brilliant." Yes, i stole that from someone's siggy can't rightly remember who... and I just spent the last half-hour trying to find out!

have fun taking paradoxes and trying to make it work!

EDIT: forgot the c in exceed >.<

edit^2:i didnt read the first ... 20 pages... my ideas arent even original apparently... how can i delete posts?

Edited April 8, 2008 by Zero

[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?

Both the amour and the bullet would be destroyed, the object the amour was protecting would be safe however.

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

Yes but he would not die, he would live out eternity with his lungs filled with water

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

I plain do not accept, if I don't accept then I don't have to worry about the "Your mission is to not accept the mission" part.

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 would still exist but no one would know her and mother/father would not exist. This is because the act of time travel removes you from the time line and places you elsewhere on it. As time is linear any such break in it would halt any repercussions of changes to history from the point of the jump onwards. It sounds complicated but that is the most logical solution to this temporal paradox.

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 reporter was using a metaphorical gesture, it simply means it will be very cold. If the statement however was literal then we must assume that the weather reporter was referring to the days maximum temperature. As the question was referring to the morning, it must be so that the max has not yet been reached.

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

THIS is a true paradoxical question. Should I answer 'no' then I would have lied, however should I answer 'yes' then I also would have lied. Therefore I am a chronic liar!

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

As light is simply a mass of photons these photons would amass within and behind the filament. When you stop or slow down the car the light would be released suddenly, it would appear as if a flash had gone off and its intensity would depend on how long you had the light on while at light speed.

8. I conclude with this challenge:

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

As God's power and strength is infinite, it would take an infinitely weighted and sized rock to complete this challenge. However since two infinite things can not coexist then it would have to be said that God and the rock are one and the same and therefore would have to be in existence at exactly the same time... I don't see any infinitely sized rock therefore does not exist and therefore god does not exist to create such a rock.

[Guest]

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?

To this, I have 2 things to say.

1) The temp will be 0, because 0x2=0

and:

2) There is no such thing as the temp being 0, there is no ABSOLUTE 0 temperature.

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

Haha. I like this one.

1) If you say "no", then you are lying to yourself and did say no.

2) If you say "yes", you are still lying to yourself cuz you did not say no.

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

For this....? I'd say:

If you are traveling at the speed of light in a car and turn on the headlights, then you will be seeing as you did with out the lights on cuz you're traveling at the same speed.

[Guest]

2) There is no such thing as the temp being 0, there is no ABSOLUTE 0 temperature.

There is such a thing as absolute zero, in fact the Kelvins scale is based upon this.

The kelvin (symbol: K) is a unit increment of temperature and is one of the seven SI base units. The Kelvin scale is a thermodynamic (absolute) temperature scale where absolute zero, the theoretical absence of all thermal energy, is zero (0° K)

(Source: Wikipedia)

0°C is at 273.15°K

0°F is at 255.37222°K (2 is reoccurring)

0°R is at 0°K but increases in the same increments as Fahrenheit.

I'll be damned, literally, if it was absolute zero though.

Edited April 14, 2008 by ccdemon

[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?

You are trying to have an unstoppable object and perfect barrier. They can not both exist. The existence of one makes the existence of the other impossible. If a bullet can go through anything, then there can not be the armor you describe. If nothing can get through the armor, then the bullet you describe can not exist.

If something is unstoppable, nothing can stop it.

If something lets nothing pass, nothing can.

It's a case where one condition being true makes the other impossible.

[Guest]

#7 has an answer, and it is a cinch. If you are in the car going the speed of light, your headlights shoot away from you at the speed of light (since it's a constant, it can do nothing but) However, a bystander watching as you whoosh by will see your headlights not extending from the from of your car whatsoever. To him the light will be pooling in the headlights, otherwise it would be going faster then light. In this way C stays constant for all observers. Simple.

For so many people to find things so simple. We sure do loose grasp of relativity and when to use then or than. LOL Correct me if I am wrong. (I did not study physics or finish the 9th grade)

I would like to compare the speed of light emitting from a source to a ball being thrown.

If I am on a plane traveling 300 mph relative to the earths surface and throw a ball 40 mph toward the nose of the plane. I will witness the ball traveling at 40 mph. If someone standing on the ground were able to see me throw the ball. That person would witness the ball traveling at 340 mph. If this is true, would this not apply to light?

[Guest]

In the real world the answer to the second question would be no, a man couldn't drown in the fountain of eternal life because it doesn't exist.

It is like asking can you eat something that is not real?

however if their were a fountain of eternal life and the man received eternal life he could not drown but he may be able to suffer the pains of drowning for the rest of eternity.

Either way you can not drown in the fountain of eternal life unless what is meant by the "fountain of eternal life" is that the fountain lasts forever (or it could always just be a name)

As for number four, it is currently not possible to go back into the past and it is therefore impossible to know the outcome of this question. My guess however is that this would simply create an alternate future from that point and the "previous future" (if that makes sense) would cease to exist. This can be explained in the use of a line; rather than traveling back to a point on the line, the point on the line is copied to the instant after you travel back in time and events continue differently from there onwards.

It is also possible that once you have traveled into the past, future events (at the time when you traveled into the past) would instantly be altered (due to the fragile relationship between everything) and you could instantly be put back into a different future because the events necessary to you traveling into the past never existed.

You could go on forever with possible outcomes of time travel. I don't think I really answered this question at all, sorry

[Guest]

Also if the weather reporter reports the temperature as being 0 degrees and he says it will be twice 0 degrees the next day he most probably wont be changing the 0 degrees from Celsius into Fahrenheit or Kelvin into Celsius etc. and will therefore be assuming that he is telling everyone it will be the same temperature. (I think this made sense????)

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

I could answer with a synonym of no like negative or in Indonesian tidak (or is it bukan?) or in

OH WAIT THAT DOESN'T WORK CAUSE YOU HAVE TO ANSWER YES OR NO OOPS

you could answer another persons question first or say "no" randomly and then continue to answer the question saying "yes"

[Guest]

If I am on a plane traveling 300 mph relative to the earths surface and throw a ball 40 mph toward the nose of the plane. I will witness the ball traveling at 40 mph. If someone standing on the ground were able to see me throw the ball. That person would witness the ball traveling at 340 mph. If this is true, would this not apply to light?

actually, no! light is not like objects, it is constant to the observer , so the answer to this is inside your own quote.

sorry!

[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?

The bullet would go through the armour and the armour would repel the bullet.

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

Yes and he'd live forever.

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

I accept the definition of my mission then do not accept the mission itself.

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.

Agreed.

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?

(Assuming it's degrees Celsius) -17c. 0c=32f. 32f-32f (as cold again)= 0f or -17c.

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

Truthfully yes, I answer no.

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

I get the added bonus of seeing where I'm heading.

8. I conclude with this challenge:

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

I created a child which I now struggle to pick up, does that count?

[Guest]

You are trying to have an unstoppable object and perfect barrier. They can not both exist. The existence of one makes the existence of the other impossible. If a bullet can go through anything, then there can not be the armor you describe. If nothing can get through the armor, then the bullet you describe can not exist.

If something is unstoppable, nothing can stop it.

If something lets nothing pass, nothing can.

It's a case where one condition being true makes the other impossible.

The assertion was that the bullet can 'shoot through' anything, not that it could not be stopped. The bullet would stop under it's own decelleration owing to gravity.

The assertion concerning the armour was that nothing could get through, not that something could not pass it. If the bullet missed it would surely pass the armour and stop as described above.

Gotta love semantics

[Guest]

For Number 7: According the the general theory of relativity by Einstein, the speed of light never changes no matter how fast you are moving. Light is meerly mass converted into energy and if you were going the speed of light, the same would happen to you. Now, you may be thinking, wait a minute, if the light doesn't change speeds, then what does change? Something has got to give, and ill tell you the answer. If you just happened to be in a car that somehow managed to travel at the speed of light, time would stop.

So to answer your question, nothing would happen, it would all unfold the same as if you were standing still... the millions of miles you would be travelling and whatnot.

[Guest]

This is a really interesting thread; makes me want to pick up a book on relativity.

That said, what little I know about it leads me to believe that the general body of answers and framework of the discussion is going to change in the next twenty years. I've heard that people have been questioning the basic assumptions of the theory of relativity, and expect, based on some of the paradoxes represented even in these discussions, that there is more to be learned.

But some things I feel I can say with confidence:

The idea that light is a constant to all observors is either untrue or irrellevant. If the assumption is that we can't see the speed of light, that is certainly true; what would we see it with? Maybe there could be a difference in relative brightness depending on the speed the light is travelling (as previously stated, whether or not light can go faster than its "constant speed," it can demonstrably go slower), but without some good frames of reference that would be meaningless. Excluding that, our optical perception of light has nothing to do with its qualities.

But thinking that the light would strike the driver's eyes and bystander's eyes at the same speed is not a relevant point. If the cone capturing the light surrounds it completely from the back 180 degrees, then I'd agree that it would either gather and gain intensity invisibly (you could not see it 'less the car struck you in the face), or it would sit and be converted into heat- physics people might correct me on that latter point. If the light can escape, then presumably it would travel in whatever direction it escaped to- but I maintain that the driver would have twice as much light hitting his eyes over time...*

I hope that made any kind of sense...

I've also got some questions:

Someone awhile back put down the apparently otiose comment "what would happen if someone on a train which approached the speed of light ran from its back to its front?," and I thought it was actually pretty brilliant. The idea that in such a way one could surpass the speed of light seems irrefutable but by one argument: that of mass increasing with velocity. So how does that function, if it can be put into a nutshell? According to relativity, do we accrue mass based on our speed, the speed of the planet, the speed of the galaxy, etc? Or is it all relative? The velocity of one object is, as far as I know it, meaningless without reference to another object, but this theory seems to suggest that there is an absolute reference within the universe as a whole- isn't that contradictory? Or would the relative time-slowing function of increasing speed theoretically account for it in endlessly minute increments?

This relativity stuff is harder than I thought.

Alright, if anyone even read all that, you deserve an airmailed cookie.

[Guest]

Someone awhile back put down the apparently otiose comment "what would happen if someone on a train which approached the speed of light ran from its back to its front?," and I thought it was actually pretty brilliant. The idea that in such a way one could surpass the speed of light seems irrefutable but by one argument: that of mass increasing with velocity. So how does that function, if it can be put into a nutshell? According to relativity, do we accrue mass based on our speed, the speed of the planet, the speed of the galaxy, etc? Or is it all relative? The velocity of one object is, as far as I know it, meaningless without reference to another object, but this theory seems to suggest that there is an absolute reference within the universe as a whole- isn't that contradictory? Or would the relative time-slowing function of increasing speed theoretically account for it in endlessly minute increments?

Alright, if anyone even read all that, you deserve an airmailed cookie.

Awaiting the cookie, So is the measure along the train ground speed? Even a dead and decaying object on earth is travelling throught the universe - what's your fixed point. The center of the universe or another moving object?

there is a cannon ball travelling the earth at 300 million mph, kick it up a gear (times 2) and you can test it!

[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?

Unstoppable force meets immovable object, huh? As was already mentioned, you can't have both. One of them would be proved untrue when the 2 met.

2. Can a man drown in the fountain of eternal life? No, but he could remain eternally underwater in agony -- it isn't the fountain of eternal PERFECT life, is it?

3. Your mission is to not accept the mission. Do you accept? Doesn't matter, does it? -- there is no real mission. Accepting it means you don't accept it and Not accepting it means you inadvertently accepted it. Whoever gave you the mission is trying to distract you from something

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. Not enough information here ... the ASSUMPTION is the girl went back to a time before she was born ... but it doesn't say that, does it? So say the girl just goes back to yesterday & kills her grandmother -- then it wouldn't affect the girl being born at all. Otherwise, it depends on what you believe about the space-time continuum and if you believe in multiple planes of existence, etc. Perhaps the girl continued to exist in the past where she had traveled to, but could not travel back to her own time, because she didn't exist in the future. That's why "Back to the Future" was so wacky ... when he made it less likely that his parents got together, his own existence begin to be threatened.

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? C'mon, are we still trying to multiply with 0? Two times 0 = what? Zero. So saying it will be twice as cold as 0 is pointless.

6. Answer truthfully (yes or no) to the following question: Will the next word you say be no? My response: "Truthfully? No." The trick here is not to assume you have to answer in 1 word. The "next word" I said wasn't no, and so my response was correct, technically.

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

Seriously, if you're in a car going the speed of light, you have far more things to worry about than the lights!

8. I conclude with this challenge:

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

I have to agree with the previous poster who said that God just has to say he won't pick it up, and then he becomes incapable of lifting it, because he won't break his word. Again, the initial assumption is he is not capable of lifting it due to physical constraints, but if you get past that, you understand it could be due to other, non-physical constraints.

actually ur logic for number 5 makes no sense because if its 0 degrees in Celcius then u convert it to Kelvin then u divide by 2 then convert back to celcius, u dont get 0.

as for the grandmother one its implied that its before her parents are born.

[Guest]

To whomever believes that as the car approaches the speed of light, the mass increases and will hit the bystander, there is no way for you to know that a bystander would see you moving at the speed of light, because as soon as an object of mass reaches the speed of light, it turns to pure energy, therefore, the bystander couldn't see the light, or get hit by you.

And as Einstein, one of the greatest thinkers of modern science points out, the speed of light is the speed of light. If for some reason, you woudl be still of mass and traveling in a car or whatever at the speed of light and you turned on your lights, it would be normal, according to einstein.