Paradoxes! (this will be fun)

[Agamemnus]

Let me clear up some light issues.

Light travels with around 300'000m/s (m=meters) so if you travel at 300'000m/s and throw a rock in the direction you are traveling the rock would float beside you, no matter how hard you throw it? Thats just BS, the rock will go: 300'000m/s+throwing_velocity

There are two scenarios where you throw a rock at the "speed of light", or, say, .999999999999 the speed of light (since you can't go at the speed of light):

1) You shrink in size relative to the rest of the universe. You move away from point A at almost the speed of light, and so does the rock. The faster you move, the more you shrink. Thus, (your speed + rock's speed) divided by the shrink ratio is always less than speed of light.

2) You would need infinite force to throw the rock for it to achieve the speed of light!!!
It's either of these two, or both. I don't remember exactly.

Here's an interesting phenomena:
If you slow down light (yes you can, light is particles, and as such they have mass) would it still move at lightspeed?

Yes.

If you slow down 300'000m/s would it still be 300'000m/s?

Light speed is maximum in a vacuum without any gravity present. Your question is just a terminology issue. Light does not always "move" that fast because its traversal through a medium means it has to be assimilated into the medium and then out of it. That takes time. In the interval between the particles, light particles do move at the speed of light minus the gravitational pull (which is next to nil unless it's near a HUGE object such as the sun or a MASSIVE object such as a black hole.)

[whitetiger0990]

There are two scenarios where you throw a rock at the "speed of light", or, say, .999999999999 the speed of light (since you can't go at the speed of light):

1) You shrink in size relative to the rest of the universe. You move away from point A at almost the speed of light, and so does the rock. The faster you move, the more you shrink. Thus, (your speed + rock's speed) divided by the shrink ratio is always less than speed of light.

2) You would need infinite force to throw the rock for it to achieve the speed of light!!!
It's either of these two, or both. I don't remember exactly.

0. Hold on there... who said you cant go lightspeed?
1. Shrinking? explain?
2. explain

[SJ Zero]

1. If you go back in time and make it so your parents never met what would happen?

Nothing. If time could be traversed in that way, it would have been done already, and the paradox would have destroyed everything we know. Either that or someone would be trapped in a perpetual paradox, spending lifetimes in and out of existance. I doubt history would like that much.
--
2. What would happen if I had an unstoppable force and an unmovable object?

The unmovable object will change the course of the unstoppable force.
--
3. When you run a race and you stop half as far as you ran since you stopped the time before when will you finish?

depends on how far you ran first. If you ran 200 meters then showed up for the 100 meter dash, I'm guessing not that long.

--
4. In a town, the barber shaves all and only those who do not shave themselves. Question: does the barber shave himself?

Of course not. He has a beard.
--
5. Is the following statement true: "This statement is false."

Only if you're a computer. Otherwise the red bear wil pontifex the rising sun of trubadore.
--
6. Which one of the following two statments is true?
"The next statement is false. The previous statement is true."

and the blue car will anvil the sword of gradients as the eyeball hears the deaf mans thoughts.
--
7. Obviously the following statement is false:
"This sentence contains seven words."
So let us change it to:
"This sentence does not contain seven words."

Interesting....but stupid.
--
8. Can the omnipotent God create a stone that he himself cannot carry?

Of course. Not because he's not powerful enough, but because lifting the stone will cause the fabric of the universe to unravel. oops!
--
9. Please answer this question: "Will you answer 'No'?"

I'd like to think so.
--
10. One Greek said, "All Greeks are liars." Would you believe him?

Sure. Just becasue a person is a liar doens't mean they're diametrically opposed to telling the truth, but if they never lied, then the statement could never have been said.
--
11. "If this entire statement between quotes is true then 1=2."

NullPointerException
--
12. If you attempt to fail and succeed which have you done?

Both. You succeeded at failing, but you failed at that which you failed.
--
13. What happens if you go lightspeed and turn on the headlights?

You destroy the universe.
--
14. If nothing is better than eternal happiness and a ham sandwhich is better than nothing. Does that mean a ham sandwhich is better than enternal happiness?

Yes. I like ham.
--
15. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
The chicken. Silly question really, since the genetic material and protiens making up the chicken fetus were in the womb before the egg started to form.
--
16. If our universe is infinite and our world is finite, any finite value would take up such an infintly small of space. So do we exist?

Just because something is too small to calculate doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Plus, there is a limited amount of matter in the universe.
--
17. There is no probability, you either do it or you dont. Instead of 80% rain it's either 100% or 0%.

You don't understand probability. It's not a matter of whether something will happen or not, but a matter of whether our knowlege of the world is precise enough to estimate or hypothesize to within a reasonable degree of accuracy.
--
18. Where would a hole in a Möbius strip lead?[/quote]

to the back of the strip?

[red_Marvin]

What was first the chicen or the egg

The egg since the creatures the hen descended from certanly laid eggs...

[whitetiger0990]

to the back of the strip?

your joking... a Möbius strip has 1 side and 1 edge... there is no back

[Agamemnus]

Can't explain any further...

I forgot to add that either one is correct, or both are correct...

EDIT:

Here's an equation for velocity that answers a different part of the question...
http://astro.isi.edu/notes/luxon.html

[Z!re]

You don't need infinite power to reach the speed of light, that is just absurd.

If it was true then light would contain infinite power, meaning, light would destroy everything in it's path.

A body (however small) with infinite power hitting something eles, does NOT bounce off.

Take a grain of sand, give it infinite power, and let it fall, or hit, let's say... the earth... do you think it would bounce off?

Also it would mean that a star would have the infinite power needed to propel light out, meaning a star would have MORE than infinite power, and as we all know infinite+1 is impossible.


The reason why it is near impossible to reach a speed greater then light is because we don't have anything faster then light that can propel our craft/item/thing.

Light->Object

Object will gain at most 0.9999999999999999 the speed/power of light.

Source->Object

Object will gain at most 0.999999999999999999 the speed/power of Source

(A 100% transformation from one body/power to another body/power without loss is impossible, there will always be a side product, example, light (candle, or bulb)=heat)


You can't say traveling at speed's greater then light is impossible, it's just we humans don't know how to do it, yet.

Also, if lightspeed=infinite mass.... you take a guess what would happen if a lightparticle (forgot their name, argh) hit something.

An object with infinite mass, traveling at 300'000m/s hitting something. *turns off lights, draws down curtain "you aint hitting me light"*

Relativity doesn't technically forbid anything from travelling beyond the speed of light. It just prevents anything with so-called "proper mass" (otherwise known as "rest mass") like baseballs and trains from travelling precisely at the speed of light.

Please note the "at". Who said at? We are talking about greater than.

[KiZ]

Also, if lightspeed=infinite mass.... you take a guess what would happen if a lightparticle (forgot their name, argh) hit something.

Tthis can be explained by another way. Light can be Explained by two methods: Either particles or waves. You choose which one suits the situation best. (because we dont actually know that much about light yet) In this case I choose light waves. Not particles. Heh. What a wonderful physics proffesor type way to get around the problem. =D

Oh and by the way I think you were looking for the word "Photon"!

[Z!re]

Heh, in simple terms, the scientist don't have a clue so they just spew out stuff at random :rotfl:

-"Light is particles, photons."
-"What happens if light hit's something?"
-"Err, I mean, light is waves.... with mass... responding to gravity...."

BTW, Photons have mass... so would that make a photon have infinite mass? Meaning infinite power, meaning total destruction, IF light is particles that is. But as we all know, light is waves.

So, lightwaves are just like, for example, radiowaves? (they move at the same speed, ohhh... but thats impossible according to some poeple)
How do you block a radiowave?
How do you block a lightwave?

If lightwaves are supposed to have the power they are claimed to have, wouldn't they just pass through? (X-Rays, gammarays, radiowaves etc...)

And if light passes through, woudlnt it be impossible to create... *tnesion building drums* shadows?


Z!re hides in a nonexistant shadow, waiting for reply while avoiding getting annihialated by lightwaves or photons.

[red_Marvin]

AFAIK light, gamma-radiation, radiowaves, x-rays, IR-light
etc etc Is the same thing (basically) -> Electromanetic radiation
(but at different frequencies)

--

Isn't tachyons (if they exist) faster than light?