• The Unanswerable Questions Thread - Bill O'Reilly First Edition
    114 replies, posted
[QUOTE=credesniper;28254948]How do I know the whole universe isn't a dream I'm having?[/QUOTE] You're asking us to tell you how you found out the universe isnt a dream? How about you tell us how it isnt a dream first? :3:
[QUOTE=Lilolia;28254936]The simplest way to look at it would be imagine the Earth sitting above a flat plane, which is space. Because the Earth is quite large, it causes quite a big dent into space, which is called a gravity well. Anything that gets near the well will hit the slope in space and start rolling down towards the center of the well, which is the center of Earth. This is of course, unless it has enough force to propel itself back out of the well, or it has enough force to just stay rolling around the same section of the well like the moon does.[/QUOTE] But the bending of spacetime-theory doesn't work on a quantum scale. Nor does it explain why gravity is such a weak force. Nor does it explain [I]how[/I] mass bends spacetime. And there even are things which might suggest that it's wrong all-together (i.e rotation of galaxies, pioneer anomaly). You say it's the simplest way, but is it the [I]correct[/I] way?
Why do people have a furry fetish?
Well, we'll just have to wait and see :iiam:
[QUOTE=NoobSauce;28255130]Why do people have a furry fetish?[/QUOTE] same reason why we all think differently, act differently, and have variation.
[QUOTE=slayer20;28248081]The moon, like other planets, were formed from gasses that condensed together. A common theory is that the moon was formed right next to Earth around the same time. I think it goes something like that... Also, as for my question. If Pinocchio says that his nose is going to grow, what happens? Things to note: His nose grows when he lies.[/QUOTE] Wrong, that theory is no longer common as it has been proven false by scientists since the 1970s. The moon came into being after a roughly Mars sized planetoid collided with the Earth at just the right angle to expel a large amount of matter from the still molten, nascent Earth. Most of the globlets fell back into the planet, but a good sized bit of matter was in just the right distance to form on it's own. This theory answers many of the unsolved questions about the Moon that your theory cannot answer: Why is the Earth the only terrestrial planet with a large moon? Why is there a lack of reactable materials (as in, materials that react in the presence of large amounts of heat?) And, finally, why is the composition of the Moon's crust and mantle consistent with the mantle of the Earth?
Uhoh!! Whoaa..! KABOOOM!! [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d1/Big_Slash.gif/600px-Big_Slash.gif[/img] [QUOTE=Canuhearme?;28255456] This theory answers many of the unsolved questions about the Moon that your theory cannot answer.[/QUOTE] It also gives rise to some difficulties: [quote="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis#Difficulties"][list] [*] The ratios of the Moon's volatile elements are not explained by the giant impact hypothesis. If the giant impact hypothesis is correct, they must be due to some other cause.[17] [*] There is no evidence that the Earth ever had a magma ocean (an implied result of the giant impact hypothesis), and it is likely there exists material which has never been processed by a magma ocean.[17] [*] The iron oxide (FeO) content (13%) of the Moon, which is intermediate between Mars (18%) and the terrestrial mantle (8%), rules out most of the source of the proto-lunar material from the Earth's mantle.[18] [*] If the bulk of the proto-lunar material had come from the impactor, the Moon should be enriched in siderophilic elements, when it is actually deficient in those.[19] [*] The presence of volatiles such as water trapped in lunar basalts is more difficult to explain if the impact caused a catastrophic heating event.[20] [*] The Moon's oxygen isotopic ratios are essentially identical to those of Earth.[3] Oxygen isotopic ratios, which can be measured very precisely, yield a unique and distinct signature for each solar system body.[21] If Theia had been a separate proto-planet, it would probably have had a different oxygen isotopic signature than Earth, as would the ejected mixed material.[4][/list] [/quote]
[QUOTE=Rad McCool;28255543]Uhoh!! Whoaa..! KABOOOM!! [img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d1/Big_Slash.gif/600px-Big_Slash.gif[/img_thumb] It also gives rise to some difficulties:[/QUOTE] The moon was pelted by numerous metallic asteroids and comets early on in life :colbert:
Whatever, there are many theories. None have been proven or unproven. We just don't know yet.
What came first the chicken or the egg? also: What is Justin Bieber's gender?
[QUOTE=mikester112;28255958]What came first the chicken or the egg? also: What is Justin Bieber's gender?[/QUOTE] The egg, as whatever came right before the chicken laid an egg that contained what we'd call a chicken. Why is there a lack of antimatter in the Universe, if it was supposedly produced in equal quantities of matter during the Big Bang?
How are humans gonna end up? :raise:
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;28256175]How are humans gonna end up? :raise:[/QUOTE] Dead :eng101:
What would a fourth space-dimension be like?
[QUOTE=Spherexd;28248372]That's a mind fuck. Technically he'd be telling the truth but aswell would be lying. If he says his nose is going to grow, and it doesn't, he then lied as a result his nose will grow. Other wise he divided by 0. [b]Question:[/b] Why do men have nipples?[/QUOTE] cuz there is a time when both men and woman are the same ~ and then the nipples are formed Before the gender is defined
How come they sell hot dogs in packages of twelve and buns in packages of eight?
Why aren't we allowed to talk about piracy on facepunch but there's still a full subforum for drugs?
How do you get down from an elephant?
[QUOTE=-ZeeBo-;28256777]Why aren't we allowed to talk about piracy on facepunch but there's still a full subforum for drugs?[/QUOTE] It's called double standards.
[QUOTE=-ZeeBo-;28256777]Why aren't we allowed to talk about piracy on facepunch but there's still a full subforum for drugs?[/QUOTE] Because Garry, as a game developer, is not okay with piracy. But he is of course okay with drugs. And in this forum, Garry is the supreme overlord. Oh, and imagine a thread about how to find a free version of Gmod on FP. Wouldn't that be silly?
[QUOTE=-ZeeBo-;28256777]Why aren't we allowed to talk about piracy on facepunch but there's still a full subforum for drugs?[/QUOTE] Lawsuits
[QUOTE=Zakkin;28247771]Magnets?[/QUOTE] Moving electric charges produce a magnetic field.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28263857]Moving electric charges produce a magnetic field.[/QUOTE] Layman's terms for "I don't know". :3: The real question is of course how a magnetic field work - which involves explaining electromagnetism. And I highly doubt there's anyone here who has a full understanding of quantum electrodynamics.
[QUOTE=Rad McCool;28264464]Layman's terms for "I don't know". :3: The real question is of course how a magnetic field work - which involves explaining electromagnetism. And I highly doubt there's anyone here who has a full understanding of quantum electrodynamics.[/QUOTE] Curses, you're right! I haven't the slightest clue how magnets work! But then why would I? It's not like I go to university for physics or something. [IMG]http://i56.tinypic.com/15d5014.jpg[/IMG] and of course given that I don't know a damn thing about quantum electrodynamics! I mean who understands that shit anyway [IMG]http://i56.tinypic.com/20p0nr.jpg[/IMG] I will ensure that I defer to you on these issues in the future Also the question was, "Magnets?" The implied question is "How do magnets work?" Or, equivalently, "Fuckin' magnets, how do they work?" Nowhere in that is a question about how the magnetic FIELD works, but how magnets themselves work.
[QUOTE=mbutler2;28248375]Can God create a stone so heavy, that he himself can not lift it?[/QUOTE] A common response is that since God is supposedly omnipotent, the phrase "could not lift" doesn't make sense and the paradox is meaningless.An alternative version would be to assume that a non-corporeal God cannot lift anything, but can raise it (a linguistic pedantry) - or to use the beliefs of Christians and Hindus (that there is one God, who can be manifest as several different beings) that whilst it is possible for God to do all things, it is not possible for all his incarnations to do them. As such, God could create a stone so heavy that, in one incarnation, he was unable to lift it - but would be able to do something that an incarnation that could lift it couldn't. Thomas Aquinas asserts that the paradox arises from a misunderstanding of omnipotence. He maintains that inherent contradictions and logical impossibilities do not fall under the omnipotence of God. J. L Cowan sees this paradox as a reason to reject the concept of absolute omnipotence, while others, such as Rene Descartes, argue that God is absolutely omnipotent, despite the problem. C. S. Lewis argues that when talking about omnipotence, referencing "a rock so heavy that God cannot lift it" is nonsense just as much as referencing "a square circle." So asking "Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it?" is just as much nonsense as asking "Can God draw a square circle?" The logical contradiction here being God's simultaneous ability and disability in lifting the rock (the statement "God can lift this rock" must have a truth value of either true or false, it cannot possess both). Therefore the question (and therefore the perceived paradox) is meaningless. Nonsense does not suddenly acquire sense and meaning with the addition of the two words, "God can" before it. One can also attempt to resolve the paradox by asserting a kind of omnipotence that does not demand that a being must be able to do all things at all times. According to this line of reasoning, the being can create a stone which it cannot lift at the moment of creation. Being omnipotent, however, the being can always alter the stone (or itself) later so that it can lift it. Therefore the being is still, perhaps, in some sense omnipotent. But if you consider the fact that if the being alters the stone it is no longer the same stone, and if it makes itself stronger, that is proof enough it was not previously omnipotent, and will never be truly omnipotent, not within the realm of logic. This is roughly the view espoused by Matthew Harrison Brady, a character in the 1955 play Inherit the Wind loosely based upon William Jennings Bryan. In the climactic scene of the 1960 movie version, Brady argues, "Natural law was born in the mind of the Creator. He can change it—cancel it—use it as he pleases!" But this solution merely pushes the problem back a step; one may ask whether an omnipotent being can create a stone so immutable that the being itself cannot later alter it. But a similar response can be offered to respond to this and any further steps. In a 1955 article published in the philosophy journal Mind, J. L. Mackie attempted to resolve the paradox by distinguishing between first-order omnipotence (unlimited power to act) and second-order omnipotence (unlimited power to determine what powers to act things shall have).[16] An omnipotent being with both first and second-order omnipotence at a particular time might restrict its own power to act and, henceforth, cease to be omnipotent in either sense. There has been considerable philosophical dispute since Mackie, as to the best way to formulate the paradox of omnipotence in formal logic. Another common response to the omnipotence paradox is to try to define omnipotence to mean something weaker than absolute omnipotence, such as definition 3 or 4 above. The paradox can be resolved by simply stipulating that omnipotence does not require the being to have abilities which are logically impossible, but only to be able to do anything which conforms to the laws of logic. A good example of a modern defender of this line of reasoning is George Mavrodes. Essentially, Mavrodes argues that it is no limitation on a being's omnipotence to say that it cannot make a round square. Such a "task" is termed by him a "pseudo-task" as it is self-contradictory and inherently nonsense. Harry Frankfurt—following from Descartes—has responded to this solution with a proposal of his own: that God can create a stone impossible to lift and also lift said stone For why should God not be able to perform the task in question? To be sure, it is a task—the task of lifting a stone which He cannot lift—whose description is self-contradictory. But if God is supposed capable of performing one task whose description is self-contradictory—that of creating the problematic stone in the first place—why should He not be supposed capable of performing another—that of lifting the stone? After all, is there any greater trick in performing two logically impossible tasks than there is in performing one? This argument, while seeming ingenious, is indefensible since once the stone is lifted, then it can be said that the being never created a stone that it could not lift in the first place, thereby not demonstrating the implied level of omnipotence. Also, the idea in this argument that there are "two logically impossible tasks" is misleading since the logical impossibility of an omnipotent being creating the stone consists in not being able to lift it once it exists, and the logical impossibility of lifting such a stone consists in the fact that the stone exists solely to resist any such attempts. That is, it's one logical impossibility connected to both actions of creation and lifting. If a being is accidentally omnipotent, then it can resolve the paradox by creating a stone which it cannot lift and thereby becoming non-omnipotent. Unlike essentially omnipotent entities, it is possible for an accidentally omnipotent being to be non-omnipotent. This raises the question, however, of whether or not the being was ever truly omnipotent, or just capable of great power.On the other hand, the ability to voluntarily give up great power is often thought of as central to the notion of the Christian Incarnation. If a being is essentially omnipotent, then it can also resolve the paradox (as long as we take omnipotence not to require absolute omnipotence). The omnipotent being is essentially omnipotent, and therefore it is impossible for it to be non-omnipotent. Further, the omnipotent being cannot do what is logically impossible. The creation of a stone which the omnipotent being cannot lift would be an impossibility. The omnipotent being cannot create such a stone, but nevertheless retains its omnipotence. This solution works even with definition 2, as long as we also know the being is essentially omnipotent rather than accidentally so. However, a reduction of ones' own power is possible for non-omnipotent beings, so one would have the paradoxical situation that non-omnipotent beings can do something which an essentially omnipotent being can not accomplish. This was essentially the position taken by Augustine of Hippo in his The City of God: “For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent.” Thus Augustine argued that God could not do anything or create any situation that would in effect make God not God. Some philosophers maintain that the paradox can be resolved if the definition of omnipotence includes Descartes' view that an omnipotent being can do the logically impossible. In this scenario, the omnipotent being could create a stone which it cannot lift, but could also then lift the stone anyway. Presumably, such a being could also make the sum 2 + 2 = 5 become mathematically possible or create a square triangle. This attempt to resolve the paradox is problematic in that the definition itself forgoes logical consistency. The paradox may be solved, but at the expense of making the logic a paraconsistent logic. This might not seem like a problem if one is already committed to dialetheism or some other form of logical transcendence. St Augustine's definition of omnipotence, i.e. that God can do and does everything that God wishes, resolves all possible paradoxes, because God, being perfectly rational, never wishes to do something that is paradoxical. If God can do absolutely anything, then God can remove His own omnipotence. If God can remove His own omnipotence, then God can create an enormous stone, remove His own omnipotence, then not be able to lift the stone. This preserves the belief that God is omnipotent because God can create a stone that He couldn't lift. Therefore, in this theory, God would not be omnipotent while not being able to lift the stone. This is a trivial solution because, for example, an omnipotent being could create a boulder that the strongest human could not lift (it needn't do that anyway since such boulders exist) and then give itself the potency of an average human; it would then not be able to lift the stone. This solves nothing as the entity that is unable to lift the stone is not "God" as understood by the paradox, but a very average being with the same potency as a human. The solution only produces a reduced-potency "God"; it does not deal with the matter at hand: God maintaining omnipotence even while performing a task, the success or failure of which seems to imply impotence. [b]tl;dr: you suck[/b]
If we all come from a common anscestor, how come different species can't breed and come out with a surviving offspring?
I apologize and withdraw my statement, JM. [editline]25th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Zillamaster55;28265370]If we all come from a common anscestor, how come different species can't breed and come out with a surviving offspring?[/QUOTE] Because they are too different.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;28265370]If we all come from a common anscestor, how come different species can't breed and come out with a surviving offspring?[/QUOTE] Some can. Their offspring are just sterile.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;28265040]Also the question was, "Magnets?" The implied question is "How do magnets work?" Or, equivalently, "Fuckin' magnets, how do they work?" Nowhere in that is a question about how the magnetic FIELD works, but how magnets themselves work.[/QUOTE] I disagree with this. That was what I always wanted to know, you know, how an "invisible force" can work like that. But maybe it's just me?
I've never seen a visible force [editline]24th February 2011[/editline] Also here is Feynman speaking to your exact question [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM[/media] [editline]24th February 2011[/editline] Of course he doesn't really answer it lol
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.