Almost Impossible Question

[Davok]

42.

[JesusofChaos™]

Again it's this divided by zero thing! Is that the answer to EVERY unsolvable problem/paradox!?

 

Actually' date=' you divided by zero when you had the unstoppable force. If nothing can move faster than the speed of light and, at the speed of light, mass is infinite, then the following occurs.

The equation for kinetic energy has a denominator equal to the square root of (1 minus velocity^2 divided by the speed of light^2. If velocity = speed of light then velocity^2 divided by speed of light^2 equals 1. If you place that in the equation, then the denominator equals [b']the square root of 1 minus 1, which equals zero.[/b] Therefore, the kinetic energy could not exist.

 

Wrong the square root of -1 = I

[Encalade Shinamisu]

I think in theory, that the unstoppable force will not be stopped, but simply will start moving in the other direction and the immovable object will move somewhat...

[Exyst]

Wiki anyone?

 

Common responses to this paradox resort to logic and semantics.

 

* Logic: if such a thing as an irresistible force exists, then no object is immovable, and vice versa. It is logically impossible to have these two entities (a force that cannot be resisted and an object that cannot be moved by any force) in the same universe.

 

* Semantics: if there is such a thing as an irresistible force, then the phrase immovable object is meaningless in that context, and vice versa, and the issue amounts to the same thing as, for example, asking for a triangle that has four sides.

 

A third response to this paradox employs the humour of exaggeration: "The result would be an indescribable collision!"

 

This paradox is a form of the omnipotence paradox, but that paradox is most often discussed in the context of God's omnipotence (Can God create a stone so heavy it cannot be lifted, not even by God Himself?").

 

The paradox should be understood as an exercise in logic, not as the postulation of a possible reality. According to modern scientific understanding, no force is completely irresistible, and there are no immovable objects and cannot be any, as even a minuscule force will cause a slight acceleration on an object of any mass. An immovable object would have to have infinite inertia, and therefore infinite mass. Such an object would collapse under its own gravity and create a singularity. An unstoppable force would require infinite energy, which does not exist in a finite universe.

 

An example of this paradox in non-western thought can be found in the origin of the Chinese word for paradox (Chinese: 矛盾; pinyin: máodùn; literally "Spear-Shield"). This term originates from a story (see the Kanbun example) in the 3rd century BC philosophical book Han Feizi.[1]. In the story, a man was trying to sell a spear and a shield. When asked how good his spear was, he said that his spear could pierce any shield. Then, when asked how good his shield was, he said that it could defend from all spear attacks. Then one person asked him what would happen if he were to take his spear to strike his shield; the seller could not answer. This led to the idiom of "zìxīang máodùn" (自相矛盾), or "self-contradictory."

[CrabHelmet]

Again it's this divided by zero thing! Is that the answer to EVERY unsolvable problem/paradox!?

 

Actually' date=' you divided by zero when you had the unstoppable force. If nothing can move faster than the speed of light and, at the speed of light, mass is infinite, then the following occurs.

The equation for kinetic energy has a denominator equal to the square root of (1 minus velocity^2 divided by the speed of light^2. If velocity = speed of light then velocity^2 divided by speed of light^2 equals 1. If you place that in the equation, then the denominator equals [b']the square root of 1 minus 1, which equals zero.[/b] Therefore, the kinetic energy could not exist.

 

Wrong the square root of -1 = I

 

First of all, i generally isn't capitalized, and second of all, 1 - 1 =/= -1

[Supreme Gamesmaster]

Let's say there is a bullet which can shoot through any barrier. Let's also say there is an absolutely bullet-proof armor which no object can penetrate. What will happen if such a bullet hits such an armor?

They kinda sound the same ^

He got that from me/draco.

And anyway that has an answer' date=' the bullet can go through ANYTHING...

So it goes through the armor.

[/quote']

Actually, if it properly hits it, it'll just bounce right off. If it just goes through à la phased ghosts, it won't hit at all.

 

Again it's this divided by zero thing! Is that the answer to EVERY unsolvable problem/paradox!?

 

Actually' date=' you divided by zero when you had the unstoppable force. If nothing can move faster than the speed of light and, at the speed of light, mass is infinite, then the following occurs.

The equation for kinetic energy has a denominator equal to the square root of (1 minus velocity^2 divided by the speed of light^2. If velocity = speed of light then velocity^2 divided by speed of light^2 equals 1. If you place that in the equation, then the denominator equals [b']the square root of 1 minus 1, which equals zero.[/b] Therefore, the kinetic energy could not exist.

 

Wrong the square root of -1 = I

√(1-1)

=

√(0)

 

Or, in a different interpretation...

(√1) - 1

=

(1) - 1

=

0

 

Reading comprehension is fun.

[Whitey]

MAKES A HOLE IN IT!

[Uchiha]

The incident will mutually excluding one from another. So we need new definition for either one of them.

[Welche the crab]

They will both break, you said nothing about how strong they are.

[Twiggy_StiX]

The unstoppable force wil push on the immovable object, making the planet spin.

[Pikachu]

This must be correct. If this is wrong, then I say 'hard cheese':

 

The force could be able to break any object by a tiny bit, or vice versa. If an unstoppable force and an immovable object collide, it is impossible; therefore, none of the two things can exist.

 

So basically, this is a false premises.

[Flinsbon]

They could become fused together when they collide. If that were the case, neither would exist any longer and you would have a completely new object. That would abide by the definitions of each individual object because the fused object would no longer have those properties.

[Umbra]

The answer is "You".

[Flexh]

You know what my answer is i don't know

[Professor Cobra]

All the energy is exerted until something breaks?

[Lord of Chaos]

I say that when the object gets hit that the moving one is still moving but is moving place there for it is still moving but unmovible object is still in place

[chainsaw20x6]

an unstoppable object would have to have momentum, while and inmovable one would have to have infite inertia

 

momentum=speed times mass

we will call these f (momentum) speed (s) and mass (m) although though those may not be proper terms

 

f = sm

f = infinity

infinity = sm (transitive property)

any 2 real numbers multiplied together will equal a real number by the closure property

therefore both s and m cant be real numbers, one has to be infinty or perhaps and imaginary number, provided you dont consider infinity a real number, if you do, then all real numbers except infitiny are still under the closure property of adition subtraction and multiplication of real numbers that are not infinity.

therefore one still quite does have to be infinity or and imaginary number.

okay its not an imaginary number, an objects mass or speed cant be an imaginary number because all equations you would try to do with it would result in things with imaginary numbers happening (s= i mph, therefore in 1 hour it travels i miles, that quite makes no sence)

if the speed was infinite it would A. exceed the speed of light B. it would be infinately far to one side of the universe the moment the item reached that speed, now this dives into, what is the end of the universe, does it go on forever, ect, but im not going to explore that right now

but then just achieveing that speed, would require infinate energy.

and infinate mass which requires either infinate density, width, height or depth (since size equals width x height x depth, and size x density = mass) (see before for closure property and transitive)

width height or depth would make it extend to either past the end of the universe if their is one, or to the end of the universe if there isnt one.

infinite density cant happen, the highest possiable density would be an object with no empty space

further, if it had infinate mass, it would have infinate inertia, therefore it would be an immovalbe object itself, so its speed would have to be 0 and infinty times 0 is 0

 

an immovable object would have to have infinte inertia, therefore infinate mass, which ive already disproven i believe, therefore neither can exist.

 

 

 

But the answer is, my belief on paradoxial situations, if they occur

either A. Phyics has a law govenerning them if they are possiable that would result in some possiable, that just isnt in our laws of science since we havent observed major paradoxs yet (outside of the grammitical, but grammer and science are totally seperate realms)

or B. Phyics would not understand it, like when you tell a calculator to divide by 0, but calculators have a built in function to simply say error, if they didnt im not sure of what would happen, but i can imagine it wouldnt be too unlike the Y2K bug and it would crash

so the universe would crash, or maybe phyics has a built in error function, it might remove the objects involved in the paradox and maybe replace them with new objects or energy to keep thermodynamics.

---

um you all are terriabely wrong as of to what a black hole is, a black hole is simply really dense mass. they arent dimsional rifts or any of that kind of thing

[Whitey]

ITS GOES BOOM AND CAUSES A NUCLEAR EXPLOSION! =3

 

no but seriously, i think it would cause the unstoppable object splitting but still moving, therefore, its would still be an unstoppable object, and the other would still be an immovable object....

[Pikachu]

The answer is 'both things cannot exist at the same time'

POOF Nuff said

[Abstract [Atrocity]]

You'll find your answer when you find the tangent of 90, square the circle, divide that by 0 then sh*t your pants and die twice.

[Pikachu]

^ lulz?

can we lock this pl0x?

[Whitey]

' pid='1246247' dateline='1224304107']

You'll find your answer when you find the tangent of 90' date=' square the circle, divide that by 0 then sh*t your pants and die twice.

[/quote']

 

so it's like an explosion in your pants?

 

and yeah we should get this locked...

[End Of The Abyss]

They both get shot by teh Dustin EXtreme.

[Abstract [Atrocity]]

' pid='1246247' dateline='1224304107']

You'll find your answer when you find the tangent of 90' date=' square the circle, divide that by 0 then sh*t your pants and die twice.

[/quote']

 

so it's like an explosion in your pants?

 

and yeah we should get this locked...

 

No, you'll become enlightened after you do all of the above.

 

edit: you must add "Make sweet love to Hayley Williams" to the list if you are one of her close-minded fanboys.

[Dementedsnake]

If an unstoppable force is unstoppable, then nothing can stop it, thus negating the existence of the unmovable object. The same holds true in reverse. Meaning, they cannot both exist in the same universe or at the same time. Your question is rendered mute and an answer cannot be given.

 

Have a nice day.