the off topic thread philisophical question
#44
Senior Member
Fail, INC
SL Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Nice little room with padded walls
Posts: 9,975
if the lens of our eye flips the light coming into our eye, then are we living in an upside down world?
sorry, something that has always bothered me since middle school science
sorry, something that has always bothered me since middle school science
#45
Originally Posted by RedneckwithanxB
if the lens of our eye flips the light coming into our eye, then are we living in an upside down world? sorry, something that has always bothered me since middle school science
#47
Here's another one....
If you are sitting there, looking in a mirror, trying to decide which side to put something on...such as an armband, which way the bill of your hat faces, etc... and you figure out it looks good on your right side while looking in the mirror, then why don't you put it on your left arm to achieve the image in the mirror?
If you all remember the movie "Clueless," or ever had a sister that made you watch it numerous times, they did Polaroids...makes sense eh?
If you are sitting there, looking in a mirror, trying to decide which side to put something on...such as an armband, which way the bill of your hat faces, etc... and you figure out it looks good on your right side while looking in the mirror, then why don't you put it on your left arm to achieve the image in the mirror?
If you all remember the movie "Clueless," or ever had a sister that made you watch it numerous times, they did Polaroids...makes sense eh?
#48
Mirrors have been a problem for me since I was a mere child...
Since a mirror reverses left and right, why doesn't it reverse top and bottom???
That's bothered me since about 1949...
Since a mirror reverses left and right, why doesn't it reverse top and bottom???
That's bothered me since about 1949...
#49
because the lens of your eye re-inverts the image?
no, that's not right.
=thanks a lot, Tom, for -ruining- my peace of mind for the rest of my dim, inverted life= rats!
no, that's not right.
=thanks a lot, Tom, for -ruining- my peace of mind for the rest of my dim, inverted life= rats!
Since a mirror reverses left and right, why doesn't it reverse top and bottom???
That's bothered me since about 1949... Sad
That's bothered me since about 1949... Sad
#50
Here's a question to annoy people as it has annoyed me since I was five years old, staring at the tricycle's front wheel as it slowly turned:
Q: is the motion continuous,
or is it definable as
infinitesimally small starts and stops?
At five I could not pose the question,
but that is what my question was then, and is now.
Q: is the motion continuous,
or is it definable as
infinitesimally small starts and stops?
At five I could not pose the question,
but that is what my question was then, and is now.
#51
Ah! Zeno's paradox, Reid!
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/
It's all descrete motions that prove that no motion is possible!
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/
It's all descrete motions that prove that no motion is possible!
#52
Originally Posted by xlr8tC
here's o look at the chicken/egg question. i don't 100% agree, but i don't disagree with it. In an evolutionary world, things must exist before potentials are realized. so, something must evolve into a chicken before it becomes able to create eggs outside it's body. so, the chicken evolved all the way from a single celled organism (which reproduce by splitting) into a chicken, and then the chicken adapted to have eggs outside it's body.
In a creationist world, the chicken was created by god(or aliens, or whatever you believe or don't).
in both cases, the chicken actually comes first.
In a creationist world, the chicken was created by god(or aliens, or whatever you believe or don't).
in both cases, the chicken actually comes first.
#53
it's not possible. not even a little bit. a microscopic organism doesn't create eggs. it has to evolve to create eggs. so, for the sake of arguement, lets say the chicken was a salamander looking thing first. created eggs and then became a chicken. sure, the eggs exist, but the chicken egg doesn't exist till the chicken lays one. till then, it was a salamander-chicken hybrid egg. makes sense, right.
also. mirrors are reflections. do a line diagram and you'll see why(though i think you know why) everything is reversed left to right and not up and down.
and the tricycle thing.... violates the laws of motion. the same laws that keep spacecraft afloat in orbit, and cars driving. it is an interesting posit though. i'm not saying that the laws are perfectly right, but to have everything starting and stopping would require a lot of extra energy that doesn't seem to appear or disappear. do you think you could come up with a way to test it?
also. mirrors are reflections. do a line diagram and you'll see why(though i think you know why) everything is reversed left to right and not up and down.
and the tricycle thing.... violates the laws of motion. the same laws that keep spacecraft afloat in orbit, and cars driving. it is an interesting posit though. i'm not saying that the laws are perfectly right, but to have everything starting and stopping would require a lot of extra energy that doesn't seem to appear or disappear. do you think you could come up with a way to test it?
#54
Originally Posted by xlr8tC
it's not possible. not even a little bit. o microscopic organism doesn't create eggs. it has to eveolve to create eggs. so, for the sake of arguement, lets say the chicken was a salamander looking thing first. created eggs and then became a chicken. sure, the eggs exist, but the chicken egg doesn't exist till the chicken lays one. till then, it was a salamander-chicken hybrid egg. makes sense, right.
#55
Hi xlr8tC and Tom.
Thanks for the ideas.
xlr8tC, what you said makes finest, modern sense.
The Greeks could not know about states of energy, so it
seems that inherent flaws doom Zeno to be labled
a historical P.I.T.A.
Well, so, he was!
An interesting fellow.
Thanks Tom, xlr8tC
I won't worry my curly locks any more.
Tom, where does your childhood question end, though?
Is it not soluble?
r.
Thanks for the ideas.
xlr8tC, what you said makes finest, modern sense.
The Greeks could not know about states of energy, so it
seems that inherent flaws doom Zeno to be labled
a historical P.I.T.A.
Well, so, he was!
An interesting fellow.
Thanks Tom, xlr8tC
I won't worry my curly locks any more.
Tom, where does your childhood question end, though?
Is it not soluble?
r.
#56
#57
Originally Posted by SciFly
Here's a question to annoy people as it has annoyed me since I was five years old, staring at the tricycle's front wheel as it slowly turned:
Q: is the motion continuous,
or is it definable as
infinitesimally small starts and stops?
Q: is the motion continuous,
or is it definable as
infinitesimally small starts and stops?
given that it is always now, i've always struggled with "if i can remember the past why can't i remember the future, given they are both illusions?"
#58
So, is there a third dimension? I read an article that says that the third dimension may be an illusion of two dimensions like a hologram. I think it was in Scientific America but I cant find the article.
Anyone else come across this theory?
Anyone else come across this theory?
#59
Originally Posted by farberio
So, is there a third dimension? I read an article that says that the third dimension may be an illusion of two dimensions like a hologram. I think it was in Scientific America but I cant find the article.
Anyone else come across this theory?
Anyone else come across this theory?
click this link if you really want to know what is going on here.