Immovable Object vs Unstoppable Force (8 opinions so far)

[Guest JoshIcy]

Why are you people posting a debate in General? Keep it in debates and be patient. (Mind you my topic was a discussion but people again turned it into a debate). I'll move and approve though.

 

And for the record, an unstoppable object can be redirected, it would collide and move in another direction.

[blaze.]

Why are you people posting a debate in General? Keep it in debates and be patient. (Mind you my topic was a discussion but people again turned it into a debate). I'll move and approve though.

 

And for the record' date=' an unstoppable force can be redirected, it would collide and move in another direction.

[/quote']

 

fix'd

 

that is what i was saying in my theory, the unstopple force would act like the line of smoke in a wind tunnel, therefore, the immovable object remains still and the unstoppable force remains moving. In that case, both COULD exist in the same universe

[Dark]

Can God create a stone so heavy it cannot be lifted' date=' not even by God Himself?[/i']

 

EXCUSE ME, BUT WHO SAID THAT GOD COULD DO EVERYTHING?! D:<

 

its in the bible and god wrote the bible it shld be true.

 

d00d icyblu is in dis thrad so we cant talk bout relign but pm me n ill debate u cuz ur obviously dumbo

 

OT: Food for thought.

 

Assuming an unstoppable force hit anything, what would be the speed of the object?

 

Assuming any force hit an immovable object, what would be the speed of the object?

 

I speculate the answers are infinity and zero, respectively.

 

But that obviously causes a contradiction. D:

[Dissonance]

Why are you people posting a debate in General? Keep it in debates and be patient. (Mind you my topic was a discussion but people again turned it into a debate). I'll move and approve though.

 

And for the record' date=' an unstoppable object can be redirected, it would collide and move in another direction.

[/quote']

 

This garbage constitutes a debate? You have a handful of spammish comments, followed by a large number of comments simply reiterating what Crab Helmet said.

[Guest JoshIcy]

I didn't look. I saw that it was structured as one and cleaned up accordingly.

[έκλειψη]

Why are you people posting a debate in General? Keep it in debates and be patient. (Mind you my topic was a discussion but people again turned it into a debate). I'll move and approve though.

 

And for the record' date=' an unstoppable object can be redirected, it would collide and move in another direction.

[/quote']

 

This garbage constitutes a debate? You have a handful of spammish comments, followed by a large number of comments simply reiterating what Crab Helmet said.

 

 

Hey, ideas on such a thing are bound to be alike. It is common with great minds. My pardons if the mighty Crab Helmet is the only person that could have possibly thought of such a thing... 'Tis when people state that those who post something like what another user said is cheating, spamming, or just being a wannabe that annoys me. Either way, I have posted my opinion, both on topic and in response to your post, Dissonance. Goodbye.

[KindredTether]

It says immovable not inderstructabul the force thing would destroy the object.E.G. The ocean against a cliff eventually the cliff woulb be destroyed...eventually.

[CrabHelmet]

Can God create a stone so heavy it cannot be lifted' date=' not even by God Himself?

[/quote']

 

Actually, the only way to reconcile the contradictory notions of an omnipotent, omniscient creator being and free will is to suppose that this omniscient being is capable of limiting its infinite power - which means that it can make a stone it can't lift.

[Scatty]

Hey, why was this moved into Debates? The subject is not very important, and here we talk deep stuff.

What would happen if an unstoppable force would hit an immovable object? It is suggested that the unstoppable force is narrower than the immovable object' date=' so they won't miss each other.

 

So, people, brainstorm and respond!

 

[spoiler=My personal opinion']I think the immovable object is immovable because he has infinite inertia. If it has infinite inertia, then it has infinite mass. If it has infinite mass, it collapses and becomes a black hole.

 

So the black hole would simply suck the unstoppable force. This way, the unstoppable force wouldn't be stopped, but would simply cease to exist.

 

[spoiler=shatterredfox's opinion]The immovable object would become the unstoppable force

and the unstoppable force would become the immovable object.

 

[spoiler=Crab Helmet's opinion]An unstoppable force and an immovable object cannot exist in the same universe at the same time, and even if they would, they wouldn't interact with each other.

 

 

If the imoveable object was a black hole it wouldn't be a object, but a hole in time and space leading to the unknown. My opinion is that the object would wear away but not move. The unstoppable force would slowly wear away too (its still moving but just very slowly wearing away the object) because neither are indestructable. Friction would destroy the one that is smaller

 

A black hole is not an object, yes, but say it was an object while I was putting the question and split'second after that it became a black hole. Added anyway.

 

And for all people that say it redirects, I accept your idea, but still look here:

 

To redirect, it has to bounce. To bounce, it has to have ONLY potential energy for one split second. So to redirect, it must stop for a short time.

Meh, 8 opinions so far.

[Raphidra]

Simple, nothing happens.

And that will never happen, like Crab Helmet said.

[Tabris]

What do mathematicians usually do (and has been rote since the birth of non-Euclidean geometry) when confronted with paradoxes derived from seemingly indisputable axioms?

 

They reformulate the axioms, make them undergo rigorous verification, such that the reformulated axioms do not come up with those paradoxes.

 

Or so I hear.

 

So this paradox really is showing that wrong with our conception of reality, though I'm not sure what that is.

[CrabHelmet]

What do mathematicians usually do (and has been rote since the birth of non-Euclidean geometry) when confronted with paradoxes derived from seemingly indisputable axioms?

 

They reformulate the axioms' date=' make them undergo rigorous verification, such that the reformulated axioms do not come up with those paradoxes.

 

Or so I hear.

 

So this paradox really is showing that wrong with our conception of reality, though I'm not sure what that is.

[/quote']

 

The paradox relies on the assertion that both an "Immovable Object" and an "Unstoppable Force" can exist and can interact. This premise is mandated neither by scientific axioms nor by our perception of reality, so the solution requires not so much a drastic re-evaluation of the universe as a rather-less-drastic declaration that the problem's premise is itself false and unrealistic.

[The Dark One]

Hey' date=' why was this moved into Debates? The subject is not very important, and here we talk deep stuff.

What would happen if an unstoppable force would hit an immovable object? It is suggested that the unstoppable force is narrower than the immovable object' date=' so they won't miss each other.

 

So, people, brainstorm and respond!

 

[spoiler=My personal opinion']I think the immovable object is immovable because he has infinite inertia. If it has infinite inertia, then it has infinite mass. If it has infinite mass, it collapses and becomes a black hole.

 

So the black hole would simply suck the unstoppable force. This way, the unstoppable force wouldn't be stopped, but would simply cease to exist.

 

[spoiler=shatterredfox's opinion]The immovable object would become the unstoppable force

and the unstoppable force would become the immovable object.

 

[spoiler=Crab Helmet's opinion]An unstoppable force and an immovable object cannot exist in the same universe at the same time, and even if they would, they wouldn't interact with each other.

 

 

If the imoveable object was a black hole it wouldn't be a object, but a hole in time and space leading to the unknown. My opinion is that the object would wear away but not move. The unstoppable force would slowly wear away too (its still moving but just very slowly wearing away the object) because neither are indestructable. Friction would destroy the one that is smaller

 

A black hole is not an object, yes, but say it was an object while I was putting the question and split'second after that it became a black hole. Added anyway.

 

And for all people that say it redirects, I accept your idea, but still look here:

 

To redirect, it has to bounce. To bounce, it has to have ONLY potential energy for one split second. So to redirect, it must stop for a short time.

Meh, 8 opinions so far.

 

What then, pray tell, exactly IS an object?

 

A black hole is a rather vague term referring to an area of mass with a n event horizon that is larger than the mass itself. Once the event horizon expands beyond the bounds of the object, this does, of course, create a singularity, but I see no evidence to suggest that this somehow nullifies its status as matter. A black hole is definitely an object.

 

Not that it matters in the slightest.

[Pudpop]

I have to say this links to your paradox thread doesn't it?

Crab is Right.

[Guest Welche]

This problem is quite simple. Since the particles have so much energy, they move through each other and the objects continue on as before.

[The Dark One]

This problem is quite simple. Since the particles have so much energy' date=' they move through each other and the objects continue on as before.

[/quote']

 

That doesn't make any sense.

[Corvidae]

unmovable doesn't mean indestructable. The unmovable thing would be destroyed by the unstoppable force.

[Scatty]

This is still alive? Wow...

 

This problem is quite simple. Since the particles have so much energy' date=' they move through each other and the objects continue on as before.

[/quote']

 

That doesn't make any sense.

 

I know.

[Aibara]

I believe it would happen something like that: if the unstoppable power is named X and the immovable object is named Y, then

X= infinite power

Y= infinite resistance

If |X|=|Y| and these two "powers" are opposite that means (+X)+(-Y)=0

That means that nothing would happen. The force would push the object with infinite power and the object would have infinite resistance!O_o

[Theseus]

Both items cannot exist at the same time, as that would create a paradox.

[DARKPLANT RISING]

Seeing this hasn't been said, this is my idea.

The immovable object cannot move by itself, but the unstoppable force is strong, and as it collides with the immovable object, it scrapes through the whole thing in a flash. The immovable object cannot move, but it can be scraped away and in the end become smithreens. If a moron says "what if it is diamond", I will tell him solemnly that diamond is weak against heat, just like most other minerals.

[The Dark One]

Seeing this hasn't been said' date=' this is my idea.

[i']

The immovable object cannot move by itself, but the unstoppable force is strong, and as it collides with the immovable object, it scrapes through the whole thing in a flash. The immovable object cannot move, but it can be scraped away and in the end become smithreens. If a moron says "what if it is diamond", I will tell him solemnly that diamond is weak against heat, just like most other minerals. [/i]

 

Except scraping certainly entails the movement of atoms or subatomic particles.

 

It's quite obvious that an unstoppable force and an immovable object create a paradox that CANNOT be solved. They must exist only in parallel, and our universe is a system, even if a large one. Since that means inevitable reaction, they cannot exit in the same universe.

 

Another relevant point: If this object is immovable, does that mean that it possesses no kinetic energy? I mean, are its electrons moving?

 

Because at least to my understanding, absolute zero = nonexistence.

[Zimiri of the Muse]

since the unstoppable force and the unmovable force collide with each other, a stalemate will be forced. they will stay frozen together neither one gaining ground, while the exerted frce will damage the surrounding environment until an outside force acts upon the unstoppable force that would redirect its position even if only by millimeters, the immense amount of force will send the unstoppable force off into another direction, not the same as the unstoppable force bouncing off .

[Guest Welche]

The unstoppable object would move through the unmovable object.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Er, how could there be an immovable object and an unstoppable force if one is by definition immovable and the other is, by definition, unstoppable?