Quote from: Devlyn Marie on July 03, 2013, 04:25:21 PM
Ginger or Mary Ann?

I'm not picky, I'll take both!

AND Gilligan...

If you loaf around, you'll have no bread.

Edit:  This is "Russell's Paradox"

Garbanzo beans or Chickpeas?

Quote from: Jamie D on July 03, 2013, 10:38:04 PM


Edit:  This is "Russell's Paradox"

Let R = the set of 'Trans*gender, Then trans*gender is neither normal or abnormal.

Cindy's paradox.

I'm not an actor, but I play one on television.

I'm not a television, but I act like one on occasion. 

Quote from: Cindy. on July 12, 2013, 03:08:31 AM
Let R = the set of 'Trans*gender, Then trans*gender is neither normal or abnormal.

Cindy's paradox.

I would rather see Cindy's pair-a-shoes!

Perhaps I can coax Joelene into this topic, by reciting (or paraphrasing) Olber's Paradox:

If the universe is infinite,
and if the infinite universe contains an infinite number of galaxies and stars,
then why is the "night sky" not completely lit?

Olber's paradox illustrated

Light becomes more scattered as it travels through the universe, either by gravity lens effects or scattering from object it hits along the way.
You would not expect to see the light blocked by solid objects in the universe, just as you can't see the stars behind the moon.
Light has been shown to actually slow down by some of these same effects, so it may have not reached us yet and there are probably stars and such that are so far away that they haven't reached us by their light, yet.
That is the known universe, is only what we can perceive by waves of different frequencies.
Who knows what lies beyond what has already reached us?
The paradox assumes that all there is to see should be seen at once. Hardly an accurate assumption, let alone a paradox.
We could be only seeing the trees and not the forest.
If it is entirely infinite, we will never see beyond the confines of our own neighborhood.
We can't see the rest of the universe simply because it doesn't have a way to make itself known to us or vice versa.
Ativan

Quote from: Jamie D on July 17, 2013, 12:55:04 PM
Perhaps I can coax Joelene into this topic, by reciting (or paraphrasing) Olber's Paradox:

If the universe is infinite,
and if the infinite universe contains an infinite number of galaxies and stars,
then why is the "night sky" not completely lit?

Olber's paradox illustrated

If you're going to go with paradoxes, go full bore! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxes

Quote from: Ativan Prescribed on July 17, 2013, 01:23:20 PM
Light becomes more scattered as it travels through the universe, either by gravity lens effects or scattering from object it hits along the way.
You would not expect to see the light blocked by solid objects in the universe, just as you can't see the stars behind the moon.
Light has been shown to actually slow down by some of these same effects, so it may have not reached us yet and there are probably stars and such that are so far away that they haven't reached us by their light, yet.
That is the known universe, is only what we can perceive by waves of different frequencies.
Who knows what lies beyond what has already reached us?
The paradox assumes that all there is to see should be seen at once. Hardly an accurate assumption, let alone a paradox.
We could be only seeing the trees and not the forest.
If it is entirely infinite, we will never see beyond the confines of our own neighborhood.
We can't see the rest of the universe simply because it doesn't have a way to make itself known to us or vice versa.
Ativan

It is not so much of the scattering, it is the distance between the galaxies that prevents us to see them all.  Light decreases by the square of the distance.  It was the first Hubble Telescope Deep Field image that brought along this theory.  This with a telescope outside of our atmosphere with its own sky glow plus it did an unprecedented 342 exposures over 10 days straight.  This sky glow is seen in the night timelapse images from the International Space Station as an arc above the limb of the Earth.  This and the convection effects of the atmosphere prevented the ground based telescopes to get this picture.  I got these effects on my old film images and the linear subtractive dark frame and the non-linear flat field calibrations of the astronomical CCD cameras helps break through this glow on the Earth.  I was able to pick up most of the dimmer galaxies with my 18" telescope with the CCD camera than the 100" Hooker telescope at Mt. Wilson, CA did with film.  Changing technology.

  Original Hubble Deep Field: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1996/01/image/d/

  Joelene

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on July 17, 2013, 02:23:19 PM
If you're going to go with paradoxes, go full bore! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxes

No thanks, I don't need a pair of ducks, one is plenty.

That is the extent of the visible light spectrum in the deep field image.
What's beyond that? Nothing? We don't know.
Using other wavelengths we have seen other images.
Just because we can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. When we speak of the universe, we refer to the known universe.
To talk about what lies beyond is pure speculation, but we can reliably assume it is more of the same.
But then, maybe what we see or perceive is the ends.
The inverse proportion is in our atmosphere, I believe, but I most certainly could be wrong about that. But I think in space, it doesn't apply the same way. It's our limitations with earthbound telescopes, despite the compensation for distortion.
Hubble has been one of the best so far. Aren't we thinking of putting up an even stronger telescope?
One with various wavelengths also included? We may get to see the forest for the trees, yet.
You do seem more knowledgeable than I about what we are capable of perceiving.
Light does seem to slow slightly over long distances, though. In space, if there isn't anything in the way, it travels without degradation.
But like I said, some studies have shown it can slow down somewhat. it is a matter of how long it takes to get here, and if we determine the actual age of the universe, thats all the farther we could see, given the speed constant. Whether there is more, how would we know without overcoming the speed of light? Maybe someday, as I don't believe it is impossible to go beyond the speed of light. It's just our current speed limit. Why should we let that stop us from being able to either go faster or find something that has already gone beyond that?
The paradox list is the short list. Life is a paradox in it's own right
Ativan

I believe that one or more of the assumptions in Olber's Paradox must be wrong.

what if our universe was really just a box that someone else was keeping us in and the stars are just air holes?

If a parsley farmer is sued, can they garnish his wages? 

Quote from: jrd on July 17, 2013, 07:20:38 PM
what if our universe was really just a box that someone else was keeping us in and the stars are just air holes?

Actually I thought about that when I posted what I did.


And then there's whoville of course.

Why do we say substantial, (meaning considerable in amount) when one would would think that sub-stantial would mean less than something?