Zeppeli Gyro Supreme Posted December 17, 2010 Report Share Posted December 17, 2010 Well, I'm going to take a completely different approach to this and say that the force would be stopped and the object would blow apart. Before the meeting of the two objects there was nothing that could stop/move them, but once the two opposing forces existed at the same time there is no way they could exist together and both were destroyed, thus replacing themselves with the next most powerful thing in their line (as an example, gold no longer exists so they use lead, and lasers no longer exist so they use bullets). It's hard for me to explain exactly what I mean, especially since I haven't slept yet, but that's the gist of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Βyakuya Posted December 17, 2010 Report Share Posted December 17, 2010 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. To be honest, I was vague on that question. For a phenomenon like that, is impossible. Law is law. Science cannot bound beyond logic, for an immovable object vs unstoppable force. Besides, this question is vague itself on what immovable object is being acted on an unstoppable force. @slayer_supreme:That depends on the material. Again, vague. If saying a piece of paper as an unstoppable object being acted on a flat surface of steel bigger than the paper in mass and shape, it won't break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mehmani Posted December 18, 2010 Report Share Posted December 18, 2010 To be honest, I was vague on that question. For a phenomenon like that, is impossible. Law is law. Science cannot bound beyond logic, for an immovable object vs unstoppable force. Besides, this question is vague itself on what immovable object is being acted on an unstoppable force. Why should it make a difference when the original paradox specifically didn't list said Unstoppable force and Immovable object? As it is a Physical paradox, the required conditions for it cannot be achieved in any known universe. We should stop asking what would happen and start asking where it would happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Griffin Posted December 18, 2010 Report Share Posted December 18, 2010 Acceleration = force ÷ massFor an object to be immovable, mass = ∞For a force to be 'unstoppable', force = ∞Acceleration of object = ∞ ÷ ∞∞ ÷ ∞ is undefined. No answer possible. This is what happens when you try and define rules for things that cannot exist, it doesn't work.It would be silly if they exist. If they did exist, the universe would collapse and form something even more silly because it's clearly just after a laugh. I theorize this has already happened, citing humanity as evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted December 19, 2010 Report Share Posted December 19, 2010 Acceleration = force ÷ massFor an object to be immovable, mass = ∞For a force to be 'unstoppable', force = ∞Acceleration of object = ∞ ÷ ∞∞ ÷ ∞ is undefined. No answer possible. This is what happens when you try and define rules for things that cannot exist, it doesn't work.It would be silly if they exist. If they did exist, the universe would collapse and form something even more silly because it's clearly just after a laugh. I theorize this has already happened, citing humanity as evidence.∞ ÷ ∞ in terms of limits can be defined under the right circumstances. It will just have an arbitrarily different answer depending on how the situation arose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaisu Posted December 19, 2010 Report Share Posted December 19, 2010 Rinne took the words right out of my mouth. Your theory seems plausible though. I also agree partially with Crab. Neither could exist together, and if either of them exists, tell me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mehmani Posted December 19, 2010 Report Share Posted December 19, 2010 Acceleration = force ÷ massFor an object to be immovable, mass = ∞For a force to be 'unstoppable', force = ∞Acceleration of object = ∞ ÷ ∞∞ ÷ ∞ is undefined. No answer possible. This is what happens when you try and define rules for things that cannot exist, it doesn't work.It would be silly if they exist. If they did exist, the universe would collapse and form something even more silly because it's clearly just after a laugh. I theorize this has already happened, citing humanity as evidence. Acceleration isn't the result that this paradox is asking for - it's asking for what would happen to the force and object. Infinity is a mere concept anyway. This paradox should be left as it is - a paradox, an event that could never occur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Βyakuya Posted December 19, 2010 Report Share Posted December 19, 2010 So it is in-explainable what would happen right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeymadman Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 Time will slow down so that the two never meet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 Time will slow down so that the two never meet.But time is relative. It seems "normal" to whoever is experiencing the dilation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Βyakuya Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 Time will slow down so that the two never meet. That'll never happen. And this debate states what will happen, not what will before happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BehindTheMask Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 Crab Helmet correctly answered it in the first page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Chess Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 I think that both would colide, crash and vanish with each other.But I don't understand of Physics, so I say Crab Helmet is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.:Raging Man:. Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 the force would destroy the objectuh ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninjarainbowcloud6! Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 I also think crab helmet is right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkest Hour Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 So, I pose a question, can the unstoppable force only move in one direction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Culpa Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 Neither can exist while the other does. An unstoppable force (a laughable idea at best) supposedly traveling in a straight trajectory at an immovable object (yet another laughable idea) would simply cause someone to post a thread about a paradox in a debate section in a forum about children's card games that may or may not be played on motorbikes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginko Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 the unstoppable force would move through the immovable objectthe unstoppable force wasn't stopped, and the immovable object hasn't been movedit works! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.