Adam

This is more for people who believe that events transpired exactly as they were described in the holy texts.

So you have been told, possibly by a parent, or carer, that there was, at some point in time, a series of events which were ultimately started by a God. These events would seem very strange to someone who had never known religion, and yet, when these people question, and doubt that way of thinking, they are often percieved in a negative light.

Do you think that it is right to question the holy texts? To think - "What if-"?

Even if it means returning to your previous mindset with renewed certainty.

Ok, so I know that it is impossible to make a true perpetual motion machine with an efficiency of greater than 100%- 2nd law of thermodynamics. But, I heard this one, and I don't know why it would not work.

So, you make a surface on the floor consisting of rectangular permanent magnets rotated by a small degree. (Say, positive up, negative down) This in a tunnel which has had most of its air pumped out. (Very low air resistance)

Now on this you place some fairly light, long, rectangular object, a plank-shape made of carbon nanotubes for instance.

Underneath this you place some permanent magnets that are rotated by the same angle as the "track" but in the opposite direction. (And also, positive down so that they will repel.

If this was placed on the track, what would happen?

Would it accelerate? Not move at all? And why?

So, instead of writing units as, say m/s or N/C they are written as ms^-1 or NC^-1. Is there an advantage in writing them this way?

Ok, so I am aware that the speed of light (in a vacuum) is the fastest that any object could (or more likely could not) travel.

So, given a volume of empty space the size of the known universe (diameter about 93 billion light years?) And placing two objects with mass at this distance from each other. Assuming that they are the only objects that are creating gravitational fields in this universe, they should eventually accelerate towards each other, and have a huge distance to accelerate over with no resistive forces.

What speeds could be reached by this process? Close to the speed of light? And what would happen if they collided?

Given all the positive natural numbers, if a random number was selected from this set, what is the probability that it was a pre-chosen one?

e.g. What is the probability that the number selected was 2?

It feels like for a pre-stated number the probability would be zero, and yet, a number will be selected whose probability was also zero. So... What does this mean?

Does infinity multiplied by zero equal a finite number?

So let a/0 = a(1/0) - This would give "a" multiplied by infinity (first base).

What I mean here by first base is that 1/0 < 2/0, since 1<2.

Zero can be written as 0/a, for any finite a.

a/0 x 0/a = (a/a)(0/0) = (0a)/(0a) (a's cancel) = 0/0

This is only hypothetical, if you can find a contradiction (with a counter example) please comment.

So infinity multiplied by zero equals any finite number?

What do you call an argument where the premise validates the conclusion, and the conclusion IS the premise.

e.g. Are you lying? (yes/no)

-no (Not lying because not lying because not lying because...)

Premise: Not lying

Conclusion: Not lying

When presented with a logical argument in the form of premises and a logical conclusion, one must either deny one of the premises, or accept the conclusion.

So, what about infinity paradoxes?

Say, the dartboard paradox

There is a darts player and a dartboard.

P1) Suppose there is a 100% chance that the player will hit the dartboard.

P2) The dartboard is made up of an infinite amount of 0 dimensional points. (It's a mathematical, not a physical paradox)

P3) There is a point at the very tip of the dart that is also 0 dimensional.

C) Since we know that the point of the dart is 0D, as well as any point on the dartboard, the chance that the point of the dart hits a given point on the dartboard is zero. This contradicts P1.

We must either accept this conclusion (impossible), or conclude that infinity times zero is a finite, real number.

1/0 = oo

oo * 0 = 1

Water that's left to settle always seems colder than the temperature of the surroundings it is in. Perhaps this is due to evaporation? At any rate, is there any kind of fixed relationship between water-room temperatures that could be put in a formula form?

Then what's a three dimensional triangle? A triangle based pyramid? A cone?

Or a three dimensional circle? Is it a sphere? Or a cylinder?

How can you tell what a 2D object's 3D counterpart is?

If I perform the operation of one divided by zero ( 1/0 ) My answer is, of course, undefined. Since there is no real number I can multiply zero by to get one.

That said, what if I was to do the operation of one divided by (one divided by zero) ( 1/(1/0) ). Based on the rules of division and multiplication, surely that would "simplify" to one multiplied by the inverse of one divided by zero, or zero over one, which equals zero. ( 1/(1/0) = 1*(0/1) = 1*0 = 0 ). Does this work?

( x / ( y / 0 ) ) = ( x * ( 0 / y ) ) = ( x * 0 ) = 0

I suppose that would make "y/0" the only value that can be divided by to get zero.

This is just out of curiosity, I'm no mathematician.

The laws of thermodynamics show that overall entropy in the universe increases over time, and as a result of that, everything is gradually regressing to simpler states.

It is widely accepted that since the Big Bang space has been expanding, perhaps even at an exponential rate.

So I thought, could the two be linked? Since it seems so strange to me that everything should regress, and eventually fade into nothingness of its own accord;

Could it be that entropy always increases because of the expansion of space? Surely to "create" space, some input is needed?

Could that input be the same manner of thing that is being removed from the universe as a whole in the form of entropy increase?

What if, hypothetically, a large asteroid moving through space slowly entered one of the gas planets' atmospheres, yet is travelling too slowly and is too dense to burn up on the way down.

Would it just move to the center of the planet and stay there? Would there be drastic effects on the planet?

I'm talking about a very large asteroid, perhaps the size of earth entering a gas planet the size of Neptune.

Say if a large disc-shaped object in space was made out of a hypothetical very strong material, and had thrusters going off at tangents to the circle, all aimed to make it spin as fast as possible.

Now say the thrusters were powered by a hypothetical fuel that would not run out, what angular velocity could be reached by the thrusters if they constantly produced thrust for a long time? Close to the speed of light?

Assuming, of course that the structure is strong enough to withstand the centrifugal force.

Recently on my Physics course I learnt about pulsars; Neutron stars that rotate rapidly, and due to their magnetic field release radiation from their poles. We perceive this as pulses because the field is often not aligned with the axis of rotation, so I was thinking, what if a Neutron star had the magnetic field aligned with the axis of rotation? Would it produce an intense, focused beam from the two poles that could be aimed? And what effects might be observed if the beam was aimed and directed at an object in space, like an asteroid?

When the main acids in acid rain, Sulfuric and Nitric, (H2SO4, HNO3) react with compounds used in the construction of buildings, such as limestone (CaCO3), Silica (SiO2), Alumina (Al2O3), and Calcia (CaO). Are any harmful gases other than CO2 produced?

If there was a rapidly spinning object in space, say a neutron star, and through it is a very, very long pole made out of a very strong material. This is hypothetical by the way (In case you did not guess). If the surface of the neutron star was spinning at close to the speed of light, then what speed would the end of the very long pole be spinning.

In practice on earth, if I have a merry-go-round then the outside will be spinning faster than the inside. But will this work in the situation described above; what speed could the ends of the pole reach?