unanswerable questions
- Thread starter poptart_person
- Start date
KissTheCook
New member
Theory #1- In the case of an unstoppable force colliding with an immovable object, we must imagine that both objects are the same, both are unstoppable and both are immovable, nothing can stop them and nothing can move them, except for each other.
Theory #2- The unstoppable force will pass straight through the immovable object, the unstoppable force remains unstoppable and the immovable object remains immovable.
Theory #3- The unstoppable force combines with the immovable object creating a black hole which is both unstoppable and immovable.
Theory #4- The unstoppable force will ricochet off the immovable object and the unstoppable force still has not been stopped, the immovable object has not been moved.
Theory #5- There will be an eternal struggle between the object and the force, which neither will win. Although if this is the case then the immovable object would have won, as the unstoppable force would in fact be stopped.
Theory #6- The energy from the unstoppable force would transfer to the unmovable object. i.e making the unmovable object become the unstoppable force and vice versa.
Wiki knows all!
M.
Theory #2- The unstoppable force will pass straight through the immovable object, the unstoppable force remains unstoppable and the immovable object remains immovable.
Theory #3- The unstoppable force combines with the immovable object creating a black hole which is both unstoppable and immovable.
Theory #4- The unstoppable force will ricochet off the immovable object and the unstoppable force still has not been stopped, the immovable object has not been moved.
Theory #5- There will be an eternal struggle between the object and the force, which neither will win. Although if this is the case then the immovable object would have won, as the unstoppable force would in fact be stopped.
Theory #6- The energy from the unstoppable force would transfer to the unmovable object. i.e making the unmovable object become the unstoppable force and vice versa.
Wiki knows all!
M.
marinewife
New member
Thanks for the Wiki link Spinal.
I had a read of it.
And I thought I understood physics reasonably well. That took some reading!
Having waded through the first page, and looked at the links, and then the links on the links ... well let me tell you, it is even more confusing. Although it did say it was "naive" to ask what shape the universe is because of "relativity of simultaneity". More specifically it says it is naive to ask what shape the universe is a a "point in time", because of "relativity of simultaneity".
O.K. then if time is an issue here, what happens if we "stop time" and observe the universe? Can we then determine the shape of the universe?
Which leads to the next question, can we theoretically speaking, stop time, and if so, since time is intrinsically linked to the fabric of the universe what would happen to the universe?
And the last question on time, what is the smallest measurement of time?
I ask the last because think of what happens when a fly travelling in one direction hits a train coming in the other direction.
I had a read of it.
And I thought I understood physics reasonably well. That took some reading!
Having waded through the first page, and looked at the links, and then the links on the links ... well let me tell you, it is even more confusing. Although it did say it was "naive" to ask what shape the universe is because of "relativity of simultaneity". More specifically it says it is naive to ask what shape the universe is a a "point in time", because of "relativity of simultaneity".
O.K. then if time is an issue here, what happens if we "stop time" and observe the universe? Can we then determine the shape of the universe?
Which leads to the next question, can we theoretically speaking, stop time, and if so, since time is intrinsically linked to the fabric of the universe what would happen to the universe?
And the last question on time, what is the smallest measurement of time?
I ask the last because think of what happens when a fly travelling in one direction hits a train coming in the other direction.
misz_sexified
New member
On the point of time, isn't time, or rather given time, a man made phenomenen? Time does exist strictly speaking but every way we measure it has been devised by man. so technically speaking we could stop time simply by refusing to acknowledge it.
Correct me if I am wrong but does the fly stop the train dead in it tracks for an absolutely tiny fraction of a conceivable period of time?
The thinking being that the fly flies at the train, connects, and then combined with the train hurtles backwards... thus suggesting that the fly's velocity decelerates and then accelerates in the opposite direction. Proving that there is a point where the fly is dead still between heading fowards and hurtling backwards (and stopping the train in that process).
Time is commonly recognised as the fourth dimension (X,Y, and Z being the physical three). So is measured like the other dimensions on a scale. And measurements on that scale can be as hugely big or as minutely small as your imagination can handle.
As for stopping time "Bernard's watch"/"Hiro Nakamura" style it would be impossible. Theoretically stopping time actually would create an atmosphere no human could survive in.
For time to stop then all atoms would immediately be dead still reducing the temperature to absolute zero.
Assuming light travels as rays then once paused all light would be annihilated.
If you cannot interact with anything in the frozen world then you would not be able to move for the frozen air particles boxing you in.
Rather Hiro than me.
....NEXT!
The thinking being that the fly flies at the train, connects, and then combined with the train hurtles backwards... thus suggesting that the fly's velocity decelerates and then accelerates in the opposite direction. Proving that there is a point where the fly is dead still between heading fowards and hurtling backwards (and stopping the train in that process).
Time is commonly recognised as the fourth dimension (X,Y, and Z being the physical three). So is measured like the other dimensions on a scale. And measurements on that scale can be as hugely big or as minutely small as your imagination can handle.
As for stopping time "Bernard's watch"/"Hiro Nakamura" style it would be impossible. Theoretically stopping time actually would create an atmosphere no human could survive in.
For time to stop then all atoms would immediately be dead still reducing the temperature to absolute zero.
Assuming light travels as rays then once paused all light would be annihilated.
If you cannot interact with anything in the frozen world then you would not be able to move for the frozen air particles boxing you in.
Rather Hiro than me.
....NEXT!
actually Satan can not and will not punish any one in hell as he him self will be among those that will be punished in hell.
Satan has cause lots of people on earth to go against the rules of their Lord and he never bowed when he was ordered by GOD. If GOD was to not punish Satan then GOD would look unjust. SO the answer is Satan has no power over hell and what happens their. And that he will get punished.
Satan has cause lots of people on earth to go against the rules of their Lord and he never bowed when he was ordered by GOD. If GOD was to not punish Satan then GOD would look unjust. SO the answer is Satan has no power over hell and what happens their. And that he will get punished.
icewing726@sbcglobalenet
New member
OK then what about the momentum from the rotation of the planet, around the sun, and expansion of the universe. All that is at a ridiculous speed but kept constant so we do not notice.
If time were to stop would the sudden deceleration to zero cause a huge force that would smash everything to pieces?
If time were to stop would the sudden deceleration to zero cause a huge force that would smash everything to pieces?
Not really - because deceleration is deltaV/deltaT (or, change in velocity over change in time). So if you stop time, you would have no change in time, so /0 = error, divide by 0....
Hence, there would be no real decelation, it would be a "pause". Additionally, as the molecules of air/etc would also pause, you wouldn't be able to move (your motion moves air molecules, if the air molecules can't move then neither can you)
M.
Hence, there would be no real decelation, it would be a "pause". Additionally, as the molecules of air/etc would also pause, you wouldn't be able to move (your motion moves air molecules, if the air molecules can't move then neither can you)
M.
oliviatrill
New member
That's a very interesting question, that cannot be answered by a simple yes or no.
You see, "infinite" is not a unit of measure, it's a rate of change. What's more, infinity (or at least, Cantor's theorems on infinity) have variations. The most common "infinity" that most people refer to are is really Cantor's "zeroth" infinity (sometimes refered to as null-infinity, null-aleph or 1-dimensional infinity)...
I wrote a little paper on infinities and Cantor's infinities a while ago... I may still have it somewhere if you're interested. To oversimplify, iofftopicgine a 1-dimensional line; infinetly long. We both can agree that the line goes on for as long as you measure it.
Now, take a finite piece of that line, of any finite length you want. Put a marker halfway on that line. Now, put a marker halfway on both halves of that line. Repeat... infinitely... you will have an infinite number of points on the line - so we can agree that a finite line can have an infinite number of points. This is Cantor's zeroth infinity.
Now, lets go back to our infinite line. You can have an infinite number of finite lines, each with it's own set of infinite points. This is Cantor's first infinity.
Next, take two infinite lines, and make a 2D grid out of the two (X/Y for now). You can have an infinite number of points, on an infinite grid, on two infinite axises. This is cantor's second infinity.
The third goes three dimensional, the fourth stretches my understanding...
Now, going back to your universe.... If you use Cantor's notion of infinity being a rate of change, not a unit of measurement; yes, the universe is infinite. You can travel in a straight line forever without stopping. Problem is, you can do the exact same thing in a mobius strip... (or a football for that matter)...
So we then come to the notion of navigating in a straight line, forever, without ever passing over our previous path... is it infinite in this sense? Well... we can only theoreticise...
One of the more interesting notions is that of the inverted ball... Iofftopicgine being an ant on the inside of a football. Your "universe" is infinite in that you can walk straight forever without stopping... but you will pass "over" yourself, as well as the "volume" or "area" of your universe being finite. Now, invert you ball, (a proceedure that is quite complicated as you can never really "fold" any sides - this is a whole research of its own accord). Your "exploded" ball/universe is now infinite in volume, infinite in mass, and infinite in distance... problem is, you need to have something to "expand" your universe into.
So we get to the big bang theory - where two point of infinitesimally small mass, but infinitesimally large energy (unstoppable object vs. unmovable one?) collided and the energy converted to matter... but into what?
This is where theories mix with religion, and where theories are wilder than comics... I try to stay out of there, but I do keep a keen ear and like hearing the latest fantasy-oops , I meant theory
M.
You see, "infinite" is not a unit of measure, it's a rate of change. What's more, infinity (or at least, Cantor's theorems on infinity) have variations. The most common "infinity" that most people refer to are is really Cantor's "zeroth" infinity (sometimes refered to as null-infinity, null-aleph or 1-dimensional infinity)...
I wrote a little paper on infinities and Cantor's infinities a while ago... I may still have it somewhere if you're interested. To oversimplify, iofftopicgine a 1-dimensional line; infinetly long. We both can agree that the line goes on for as long as you measure it.
Now, take a finite piece of that line, of any finite length you want. Put a marker halfway on that line. Now, put a marker halfway on both halves of that line. Repeat... infinitely... you will have an infinite number of points on the line - so we can agree that a finite line can have an infinite number of points. This is Cantor's zeroth infinity.
Now, lets go back to our infinite line. You can have an infinite number of finite lines, each with it's own set of infinite points. This is Cantor's first infinity.
Next, take two infinite lines, and make a 2D grid out of the two (X/Y for now). You can have an infinite number of points, on an infinite grid, on two infinite axises. This is cantor's second infinity.
The third goes three dimensional, the fourth stretches my understanding...
Now, going back to your universe.... If you use Cantor's notion of infinity being a rate of change, not a unit of measurement; yes, the universe is infinite. You can travel in a straight line forever without stopping. Problem is, you can do the exact same thing in a mobius strip... (or a football for that matter)...
So we then come to the notion of navigating in a straight line, forever, without ever passing over our previous path... is it infinite in this sense? Well... we can only theoreticise...
One of the more interesting notions is that of the inverted ball... Iofftopicgine being an ant on the inside of a football. Your "universe" is infinite in that you can walk straight forever without stopping... but you will pass "over" yourself, as well as the "volume" or "area" of your universe being finite. Now, invert you ball, (a proceedure that is quite complicated as you can never really "fold" any sides - this is a whole research of its own accord). Your "exploded" ball/universe is now infinite in volume, infinite in mass, and infinite in distance... problem is, you need to have something to "expand" your universe into.
So we get to the big bang theory - where two point of infinitesimally small mass, but infinitesimally large energy (unstoppable object vs. unmovable one?) collided and the energy converted to matter... but into what?
This is where theories mix with religion, and where theories are wilder than comics... I try to stay out of there, but I do keep a keen ear and like hearing the latest fantasy-oops , I meant theory
M.
fiestababy05
New member
What's in my pocket?
arcanesjonathan
New member
A collection of atomic and sub-atomic molecules...
NEXT
NEXT
Correction - that's the definition of almost anything, not anything... and definetly not everything!
Everything would be a collection of strings... (if you believe in string theory)
I've defined any physical object, creature or material in your pocket - including the pocket itself should you wish to expand you query to include that
M.
Everything would be a collection of strings... (if you believe in string theory)
I've defined any physical object, creature or material in your pocket - including the pocket itself should you wish to expand you query to include that
M.