Immovable Object vs Unstoppable Force (8 opinions so far)

[Hydra of Ages]

It's a contradiction.

 

An object can't be immovable if something is also described as unstoppable, as the definitions can't co-exist. Unless the state of one doesn't interact with the state of another, wherein which the proper answer to the question is "absolutely nothing would happen".

[Cozmosus]

I'll asume by absolutely nothing you mean it never happened or the two objects never existed in the first place, then you might be right, but I like my theory better.

[Hydra of Ages]

I'll asume by absolutely nothing you mean it never happened or the two objects never existed in the first place, then you might be right, but I like my theory better.

 

No, I mean that the unstoppable force isn't stopped by, but nor does it affect, the unmovable object.

[Darkest Hour]

When an unstoppable force hits a immovable object, the unstoppable force wins because it's the first noun in the sentence.

[Dr. Cakey]

When an unstoppable force hits a immovable object, the unstoppable force wins because it's the first noun in the sentence.

Your theory is much better than mine.

[Cozmosus]

Being the first noun doesn't affect what happen physically.

[hexcalibrate]

the unstoppable force won't stop but will be reflected in a different direction.

[Grunt Issun]

The unstopable force would go straight through the immovable object, not even touching it.

[Yasu]

The immovable object wouldn't move.

The unstoppable for wouldn't' stop.

 

Duh.

[Cozmosus]

Unstopable force destroys imovable object.

[Luna Lovegood]

All of you are wrong. The two cannot possibly exist in the same reality. So you're all wrong.

[Sweetie Belle]

This thread is saying that IF they were able to exist in the same universe, and were to interact, what would happen. So I think that all of the theories I've read above this are valid, and could be backed up. Except for Darkest Hour's.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Looks like I was the only one to get it then.

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?

This question is naturally flawed, like asking someone to solve x+2=x+1. Ignoring any abstract symbol that somehow solves the problem, I think you get my point.

 

Furthermore, unstoppable forces and immovable objects cannot even exist singularly, on their own, at least given the properties of this dimension.

[Βyakuya]

Newton's 1rst Law: An object at rest will remain at rest, unless acted upon an outside force. An object moving will keep going unless stopped by an outside force, and vice-versa.

 

So your point means it's impossible. Everything has inertia. That kind of example is impossible. So therefore, this is the answer. All you others who think it's magical or something else is stupid.

[Expelsword]

The Unstoppable Force would go right through the Immovable Object, without moving it

[Guest Random Dude]

If the unstoppable force is narrower than the immovable object, I would imagine that the unstoppable force would continue moving by piercing the immovable object.

[Jaime Duferier]

Unstoppable force meets Immovable object...

 

BANG!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

They destroy each other.

[Guest Kisuke Urahara]

well, what if the unstopable force teleported* the immovable object? both remain immovable and unstopable

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*i meant teleport not transport .________.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

well, what if the unstopable force transported the immovable object? both remain immovable and unstopable

Transporting=Moving

[Guest Kisuke Urahara]

assuming perfect teleportation is perfect

[GenzoTheHarpist]

If it's location was changed, then it was moved.

[Grunt Issun]

hmmm... the unstopable force... is moving at such a rapid rate... that is molocules seperate, and it goes through the immovable object, without moving

[Mehmani]

An unstoppable force is theoretically impossible in our Universe due largely to the (unbreakable, I gather) law of Physics. An immovable object would have infinite inertia and therefore would collapse in on itself and the local fabric of space, creating a singularity (a black hole, basically). As an unstoppable force is infinite, it cannot exist in a finite universe. The question of "Wouldn't the Laws of Physics differ from Universe to Universe?" springs to mind, but that would only be in a universe in which Infinity is more than a mere concept - a universe where it could exist. That is considered by some to be a theoretical impossibility.

[Βyakuya]

An unstoppable force is theoretically impossible in our Universe due largely to the (unbreakable, I gather) law of Physics. An immovable object would have infinite inertia and therefore would collapse in on itself and the local fabric of space, creating a singularity (a black hole, basically). As an unstoppable force is infinite, it cannot exist in a finite universe. The question of "Wouldn't the Laws of Physics differ from Universe to Universe?" springs to mind, but that would only be in a universe in which Infinity is more than a mere concept - a universe where it could exist. That is considered by some to be a theoretical impossibility.

 

Yes. To add, it is unexplainable what would happen if it did.

[Mehmani]

Yes. To add, it is unexplainable what would happen if it did.

 

That is incorrect, as such an incident could and would never happen in any universe. The conditions for a paradox that is on a massive Physical scale like the Immovable object vs. Unstoppable force paradox are impossible to achieve, even theoretically.