Immovable Object vs Unstoppable Force (8 opinions so far)

[~The Game~]

Maybe the unstoppable force would go through the immovable object? I really don't know.

[Flinsbon]

Objects move through both space and time because Spacetime is one thing - space and time bound together, so an immovable object would be stationary in space and unmoving through time. Now the unstoppable force would be moving through both space and time, so if the unstoppable force hit the immovable object, the unstoppable force would stop moving through space, but continue to move through time and, therefore, not be stopped. However, the immovable object would still be unmoved in both space and time. Therefore, this is not a paradox in any way, shape, or form.

[Amethyst Phoenix]

The unstoppable force pierces straight through the immovable object, yet otherwise has zero effect on it.

 

 

The force is not stopped, yet the object has not moved.

[Dr. Cakey]

The unstoppable force pierces straight through the immovable object' date=' yet otherwise has zero effect on it.

 

 

The force is not stopped, yet the object has not moved.

[/quote']

 

Incorrect, to move through the unmovable object, the unstoppable force is passing through it, in your hypothetical situation. To do so, it would have to either a) break the objects bonds (moving it), or b) pass through a hole of some kind (in which case the two have not collided.

 

There is no stalemate in this situation. The "stalemate" means the unstoppable force has been stopped. Since an object must move in some way to be passed through, and the object cannot move, it cannot be passed through. This is certain. The force cannot stop or be stopped. The force being caused to move around the object is it being stopped, therefore that theory is false. The force MUST move THROUGH the object. But it cannot.

 

Neither an unstoppable force nor an immovable object exist. This is probably why.

 

Objects move through both space and time because Spacetime is one thing - space and time bound together' date=' so an immovable object would be stationary in space and unmoving through time. Now the unstoppable force would be moving through both space and time, so if the unstoppable force hit the immovable object, the unstoppable force would stop moving through space, but continue to move through time and, therefore, not be stopped. However, the immovable object would still be unmoved in both space and time. Therefore, this is not a paradox in any way, shape, or form.[/quote']

 

In this situation, the two have collided. Any other assumptions cannot be made. When they collide, even if one is "moving through time" and one "isn't" (if we can be sure that's really true), the force MUST stop when it hits the object, even it it's only for the nothingth of a second they "share the same time" or whatever. But the force can't stop. This is indeed a paradox in every way, shape, and form.

[Womi]

It gets reflected.

[Dr. Cakey]

It gets reflected.

 

i.e. stopped. Your theory has been eated.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

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

[/quote']

 

I'm backing this one because it's right. Think about it. :|

[Dark]

I still think Crab Helmet is right that they can't exist together because they contradict each other. :/

[Flinsbon]

Objects move through both space and time because Spacetime is one thing - space and time bound together' date=' so an immovable object would be stationary in space and unmoving through time. Now the unstoppable force would be moving through both space and time, so if the unstoppable force hit the immovable object, the unstoppable force would stop moving through space, but continue to move through time and, therefore, not be stopped. However, the immovable object would still be unmoved in both space and time. Therefore, this is not a paradox in any way, shape, or form.[/quote']

 

In this situation, the two have collided. Any other assumptions cannot be made. When they collide, even if one is "moving through time" and one "isn't" (if we can be sure that's really true), the force MUST stop when it hits the object, even it it's only for the nothingth of a second they "share the same time" or whatever. But the force can't stop. This is indeed a paradox in every way, shape, and form.

 

I have reconsidered my argument and, upon further reflection, have realized why something didn't quite sound right with what I said.

 

It turns out that, while an unstoppable force could theoretically exist, an immovable object could not. All objects "travel" at the speed of light, but that speed is split between moving through time and moving through space. Therefore, an object moving at the speed of light does not move through time and an object unmoving through space is moving through time at the speed of light (which is the "normal" flow of time). The sum of the two velocities will always equal the speed of light. Therefore, an immovable object cannot exist because all objects are moving through time, space or both, but never neither. Even if an object never moves in space, it will always be moving through time.

[Flinsbon]

Objects move through both space and time because Spacetime is one thing - space and time bound together' date=' so an immovable object would be stationary in space and unmoving through time. Now the unstoppable force would be moving through both space and time, so if the unstoppable force hit the immovable object, the unstoppable force would stop moving through space, but continue to move through time and, therefore, not be stopped. However, the immovable object would still be unmoved in both space and time. Therefore, this is not a paradox in any way, shape, or form.[/quote']

 

In this situation, the two have collided. Any other assumptions cannot be made. When they collide, even if one is "moving through time" and one "isn't" (if we can be sure that's really true), the force MUST stop when it hits the object, even it it's only for the nothingth of a second they "share the same time" or whatever. But the force can't stop. This is indeed a paradox in every way, shape, and form.

 

I have reconsidered my argument and, upon further reflection, have realized why something didn't quite sound right with what I said.

 

It turns out that, while an unstoppable force could theoretically exist, an immovable object could not. All objects "travel" at the speed of light, but that speed is split between moving through time and moving through space. Therefore, an object moving at the speed of light does not move through time and an object unmoving through space is moving through time at the speed of light (which is the "normal" flow of time). The sum of the two velocities will always equal the speed of light. Therefore, an immovable object cannot exist because all objects are moving through time, space or both, but never neither. Even if an object never moves in space, it will always be moving through time.

[CrabHelmet]

Any answer along the lines of "they phase through each other" is just a hideous phrasing of "If they are able to exist in the same universe, they cannot interact with each other", i.e. what I said over five months ago.

 

Also, what Flinsbon is saying is utter nonsense - it doesn't even hold up under dimensional analysis, let alone anything more sophisticated.

[CrabHelmet]

Any answer along the lines of "they phase through each other" is just a hideous phrasing of "If they are able to exist in the same universe, they cannot interact with each other", i.e. what I said over five months ago.

 

Also, what Flinsbon is saying is utter nonsense - it doesn't even hold up under dimensional analysis, let alone anything more sophisticated.

[Shradow]

It all depends on what the object and force are made of. What if it the Immovable Object was a cloud, for instance? Until more details are given, I cannot yet give my opinion.

 

Though in a way, the above is my opinion.

[CrabHelmet]

It all depends on what the object and force are made of. What if it the Immovable Object was a cloud' date=' for instance? Until more details are given, I cannot yet give my opinion.

 

Though in a way, the above is my opinion.

[/quote']

 

The post above yours.

 

Read it.

[Dr. Cakey]

It all depends on what the object and force are made of. What if it the Immovable Object was a cloud' date=' for instance? Until more details are given, I cannot yet give my opinion.

 

Though in a way, the above is my opinion.

[/quote']

 

You are dodging the definition of "collision". What you're saying is, "what if the force hits the cloud, but doesn't hit any of the cloud's particles?" which would be a not-collision. This is a question about if they collide, plain and simple.

[Flinsbon]

I guess none of you can understand my previous opinion so I will give another.

 

This actually builds on Scatty's opinion, but takes it in a different direction. An immovable object would indeed be a black hole due to its infinite inertia and mass. HOWEVER, an unstoppable force also has infinite inertia and mass. The only difference is that the unstoppable force has velocity while the immovable object does not. Therefore, both objects are black holes - one is moving and one is not. When two black holes collide, whichever is larger devours the other.

 

Note: the resulting black hole proceeds to devour Crab's opinion as both can indeed exist in the same universe and interact with each other.

[Yankee]

My short opinion:

 

The unstoppable force would bounce back, or in different words, change direction after contact. It's not being stopped, it's just simply moving a different direction.

 

Just my opinion. I expect Crab to attempt to make what I said to be stupid, be she can't, as it's simply my own personal opinion. [/protection]

[rhstanley3]

In my opinion, they would cease to be two different entities and become one, none-moving object. this is assuming that the immovable object is also indestructible. otherwise, I agree with Mcjimbob's opinion.

[Tentacruel]

There is no such thing as immovable objects or unstoppable force as far as I know.

[Guest Welche]

New theory. A force cannot be unstoppable and an object cannot be immovable.

[Phantom M.C.]

here's my theories:

one of these will happen

-when colliding, it will cause a phenomenal explosion similar to the big bang and destroy everything in existence.

-the 2 objects will be transported to 2 completely different dimensions that are filled with NOTHING.

[Dr. Cakey]

here's my theories:

one of these will happen

-when colliding, it will cause a phenomenal explosion similar to the big bang and destroy everything in existence.

-the 2 objects will be transported to 2 completely different dimensions that are filled with NOTHING.

Where does the energy for the explosion come from? What causes the two objects to be transported to C's World an empty dimension?

 

There is no such thing as immovable objects or unstoppable force as far as I know.

Chuck Norris.

lol chuck noris joke im so funy

Exactly.

[Phantom M.C.]

Where does the energy for the explosion come from? What causes the two objects to be transported to C's World an empty dimension?

 

 

 

energy in the objects themselves. you need energy for something to be unstoppable or immovable. (note: i'm just making up random stuff, since there are no such things as immovable or unstoppable)

[Womi]

It gets reflected.

 

i.e. stopped. Your theory has been eated.

 

No.

It does get slower, but it doesn't stop.

"reflected" is maybe the wrong word. Let's say it slips along the immovable object until it passed it and goes on.

[Cozmosus]

It doesn't move the immoveable object, it destroys it to the point that even the smallest particles are wiped from existence. If it's unstoppable it could easily detroy any object. The object never moved, and the force stayed unstoppable.