Unexplainable Questions

[ConnorGiles]

Inspired by Libre's Thread, I have made a Thread which I would find very interesting (maybe you will too).

Aim of the Game, Try and throw out a question that cannot be explained then another person will try to answer this question (feel free to chat about the question and the question can be as silly as you like )

If the question cannot be answered (theoretical answers also count), then the question shall be branded unexplainable and a new question hopefully will arise

Just thought it would be a bit of fun. I'll start!

If I were to eat myself (be it possible without dying), Would I disappear?

 

[Libre]

The way to approach a very complex problem - in this case an unexplainable question - is to reduce it to its essentials. No way would you disappear, Conner. If you put a bag in itself, maybe by simply turning it inside out - the bag wouldn't disappear. So if you ate yourself, or equivalently turned yourself inside out, with your stomach lining on your exterior, and the rest of you inside your now turned out stomach, you would just be a slimy, ugly blob (no offense). But disappear, no, I doubt it. And if this seems to approach the ridiculous, its no more ridiculous than discussing an alive/dead cat, which has captured the imagination of our greatest minds for decades. So well done, Conner. I can only take some pride in the fact that I inspired you to ask this unexplainable question that I have now explained.

Next.

 

[ConnorGiles]

The way to approach a very complex problem - in this case an unexplainable question - is to reduce it to its essentials. No way would you disappear, Conner. If you put a bag in itself, maybe by simply turning it inside out - the bag wouldn't disappear. So if you ate yourself, or equivalently turned yourself inside out, with your stomach lining on your exterior, and the rest of you inside your now turned out stomach, you would just be a slimy, ugly blob (no offense). But disappear, no, I doubt it. And if this seems to approach the ridiculous, its no more ridiculous than discussing an alive/dead cat, which has captured the imagination of our greatest minds for decades. So well done, Conner. I can only take some pride in the fact that I inspired you to ask this unexplainable question that I have now explained.

Next.

hmm, a variable would be what If I eat my stomach first? but I guess then I would just be going in and out again into a blob Well played.

Got any good ones?

 

[Brianwarnock]

Women's logic

Brian

 

[ConnorGiles]

Ah, The Male Kryptonite!

Shave eyebrows off, draw them on - To symbolise "perfect" eyebrows.

Wear Make-up, Cover their natural beauty - To symbolise a "Perfect" Model.

My answer to this one would be that the media and companies try and picture what to look like rather than being an individual, You were raised thinking a super model was the perfect woman and strived to look like her.

Final answer - Women strive too much to be what is conceived as perfect. Perfection is a term perceived differently from person to person due to opinion. (Your opinion of perfection may be different to mine.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Had my best crack at that one, No doubt a female will join the thread and completely prove me wrong haha

 

[ConnorGiles]

If you were on a plane, and it is moving at the speed of sound and you walked forward in that plane.

Are you moving faster than the speed of sound?

 

[Frothingslosh]

If you were on a plane, and it is moving at the speed of sound and you walked forward in that plane.

Are you moving faster than the speed of sound?

That is an incomplete question, as the answer depends on your frame of reference. All motion is relative.

 

[ConnorGiles]

my frame of reference is that you are in a plane and you walk forwards, are you moving faster than the plane?

 

[ConnorGiles]

What happens when an irresistible force meets an impenetrable barrier?

 

[Vassago]

my frame of reference is that you are in a plane and you walk forwards, are you moving faster than the plane?

No, his answer is right. The frame of reference would be where you are measuring it from. Everything is relative. From the ground, you are obviously absolutely traveling faster than the speed of sound. From inside the plane, no so much.

 

[Frothingslosh]

No, his answer is right. The frame of reference would be where you are measuring it from. Everything is relative. From the ground, you are obviously absolutely traveling faster than the speed of sound. From inside the plane, no so much.

It's actually quite similar to the thought experiment used to describe relativity.

Say you're on a train and start bouncing a ping pong ball. To someone on the train, the ball will look like it's going straight up and down. To someone outside the train, the ball would appear to be moving as a wave - moving up and down while simultaneously going striaght forward at a fixed speed.

 

[Frothingslosh]

What happens when an irresistible force meets an impenetrable barrier?

BIG bada boom!

 

[Libre]

What happens when an irresistible force meets an impenetrable barrier?

Something's gotta give,
Something's gotta give,
Something's gotta give.

 

[Libre]

You are driving at 60 mph in a linear direction and you turn on your headlights. According to the previous discussion about walking forward in the moving train, if you use the car as your frame of reference, the light should be traveling at the speed of light + 60mph. But the speed of light is said to be a fixed constant.
Explain away.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Doppler Effect. In cases like this, light acts like a wave, not a particle.
Also, see for reference: Wave Motion.

Both are far too large and involve too much calculus to explain here.

 

[Libre]

Not exactly an unexplainable question, but one hell of a brainteaser:

A man looks at a portrait of a man and says, "Brothers and sisters, I have none. But that man's father is my father's son." What is the relationship of the man in the portrait to the speaker?

 

[Frothingslosh]

He is the man in the portrait.

 

[Vassago]

He is the man in the portrait.

How would that be possible? If the man's father is his father's son, that would suggest the man's father and his own father cannot be the same person.

EDIT, and as I was going through it, I figured it out. The photo is the speaker's son.

 

[Frothingslosh]

How would that be possible? If the man's father is his father's son, that would suggest the man's father and his own father cannot be the same person.

EDIT, and as I was going through it, I figured it out. The photo is the speaker's son.

Dammit, you're right, I had a brain fart right there. I guess I *AM* distracted by all the crap happening at work today. (We lost a diretory full of data for a while, and on top of that I'm trying to figure out the best way to do an annoying delete query.)

 

[Libre]

Yeah - Vassago nailed it.
The easiest way for me to see it is by the following substitution:
taking the phrase; ...that man's father is my father's son.
my father's son = me (since I have no brothers or sisters, only I could be my father's son).
so the substitution:
...that man's father is me.
So if that man's father is me, than that man must be my son.
Therefore the man in the picture is the speaker's son.