Almost Impossible Question

[CeDeFiA]

there cannot be an unstoppable force because it would use infinite amounts of energy and the laws of (energy) conservation prohibit this.

 

However theoretically.....

 

The Immovable Object would requre an infinite amount of energy to move' date=' and although The Unstoppable Force has infinite energy, you cant get MORE than infinity, and they would cancel each other out.

 

So The Immoveable Object would win by default.??

Is that rite?

[/quote']

 

Nope, your wrong.

[Ferro]

nothing, because the situation cannot occur.

[CrabHelmet]

Such an interaction is impossible; if an unstoppable force exists, then an immovable object does not exist, and if an immovable object exists, then an unstoppable force does not exist. If this were not true, we would result in a conflict of terms; if something that mvoes anything exists, then everything can be moved, so logically there can't be something that can't be moved, and if something that can't be moved exists, then not everything can be moved, so logically there can't be something that can move anything.

 

However, this, the only sensible solution, is essentially equivalent to the Isaac Asimov explanation posted by Aximil and rejected by you. Thus, I conclude that this is a joke topic. QED.

[CeDeFiA]

nothing' date=' because the situation cannot occur.

[/quote']

 

Incorrect.

---

Such an interaction is impossible; if an unstoppable force exists' date=' then an immovable object does not exist, and if an immovable object exists, then an unstoppable force does not exist. If this were not true, we would result in a conflict of terms; if something that mvoes anything exists, then everything can be moved, so logically there can't be something that can't be moved, and if something that can't be moved exists, then not everything can be moved, so logically there can't be something that can move anything.

 

However, this, the only sensible solution, is essentially equivalent to the Isaac Asimov explanation posted by Aximil and rejected by you. Thus, I conclude that this is a joke topic. QED.

[/quote']

 

Yet again, wrong.

[Zeroshot]

It's impossible.

This is what we call a Paradox

or, a question with a natural consistancy.

It cannot be proven, since no such things exist.

 

Which came first, the chicken or the egg

If a tree falls in a forest and nobody's around to hear it, does it make a sound? (assuming it does not fall on a gopher)

This sentence is false.

[Aximil]

I'm pretty sure Draco doesn't know the answer either.

[Luna Lovegood]

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

[CrabHelmet]

It's impossible.

This is what we call a Paradox

or' date=' a question with a natural consistancy.

It cannot be proven, since no such things exist.

[/quote']

 

It is possible to construct proofs regarding non-existent objects.

 

Which came first' date=' the chicken or the egg

[/quote']

 

Even if we limit it to being a chicken egg rather than just any egg, the egg still wins. Basic biology, people.

 

If a tree falls in a forest and nobody's around to hear it' date=' does it make a sound? (assuming it does not fall on a gopher)

[/quote']

 

Yes. Basic physics.

 

This sentence is false.

 

This results solely from a poor definition of the meaning of the statement, resulting in an uncertainty of its veracity. It's also horribly overused; "This statement cannot be proved" is far more interesting.

[CeDeFiA]

It's impossible.

This is what we call a Paradox

or' date=' a question with a natural consistancy.

It cannot be proven, since no such things exist.

 

Which came first, the chicken or the egg

If a tree falls in a forest and nobody's around to hear it, does it make a sound? (assuming it does not fall on a gopher)

This sentence is false.

[/quote']

 

Close, but this question does have an answer.

[CrabHelmet]

It's impossible.

This is what we call a Paradox

or' date=' a question with a natural consistancy.

It cannot be proven, since no such things exist.

 

Which came first, the chicken or the egg

If a tree falls in a forest and nobody's around to hear it, does it make a sound? (assuming it does not fall on a gopher)

This sentence is false.

[/quote']

 

Close, but this question does have an answer.

 

Indeed, it does. However, you have decreed the correct answer to be wrong.

 

Thus, in the spirit of this joke topic, I'll say LOL IT CAUSES U ASPLODE!!!!

[Aximil]

How do you know this question has an answer?

[CeDeFiA]

It's impossible.

This is what we call a Paradox

or' date=' a question with a natural consistancy.

It cannot be proven, since no such things exist.

 

Which came first, the chicken or the egg

If a tree falls in a forest and nobody's around to hear it, does it make a sound? (assuming it does not fall on a gopher)

This sentence is false.

[/quote']

 

Close, but this question does have an answer.

 

Indeed, it does. However, you have decreed the correct answer to be wrong.

 

Thus, in the spirit of this joke topic, I'll say LOL IT CAUSES U ASPLODE!!!!

 

Thus, I'll say LOL THIS IZNT JOKE TOPIC.

But, the answer given by Zero is close, but not correct.

[Lazer Yoshi]

Basically, scientifically, according to Yoshi Island Science: Chuck Norris.

[CeDeFiA]

How do you know this question has an answer?

 

Draco knows the answer' date=' but won't give it away until someone states it.

Basically, scientifically, according to Yoshi Island Science: Chuck Norris.

Wrong.

[Ferro]

a universe which allows irresistible forces. Such a universe cannot allow immovable objects, as that would violate the very definition of our universe. Let's imagine a universe which allows immovable objects. Again, such a universe cannot allow irresistible forces, as that would violate the very definition of our second universe.

So, an irresistible force cannot meet an immovable object. As I said above, we do not live in a universe which allows irresistible forces and immovable objects. In fact, no universe can ever allow both irresistible forces and immovable objects. And, the question has no answer.

 

IDK

[Flinsbon]

This is not a guess, but a small explanation of a real thing. Black holes are unstoppable except by itself or another black hole. It can combine with another black hole or it can die. Nothing else can stop it. So technically, black holes in general are unstoppable forces.

[CrabHelmet]

Guys, let's take bets on whether Draco's answer will somehow make even the slightest bit more sense than the Isaac Asimov argument, and on whether it will somehow provide a reason for the Isaac Asimov argument being "wrong".

 

I'm going to bet against.

[Aximil]

How do you know this question has an answer?

 

Draco knows the answer' date=' but won't give it away until someone states it.

[/quote']

 

That makes no sense and doesn't answer my question. If he won't tell you the answer, how do you know there is an answer?

[CeDeFiA]

Guys' date=' let's take bets on whether Draco's answer will somehow make even the slightest bit more sense than the Isaac Asimov argument, and on whether it will somehow provide a reason for the Isaac Asimov argument being "wrong".

 

I'm going to bet against.

[/quote']

 

This joke is wrong.

[Ferro]

That one was my last guess, was it wrong?

[Zeroshot]

Even if we limit it to being a chicken egg rather than just any egg' date=' the egg still wins. Basic biology, people.

 

Yes. Basic physics.

 

This results solely from a poor definition of the meaning of the statement, resulting in an uncertainty of its veracity. It's also horribly overused; "This statement cannot be proved" is far more interesting.

 

It is possible to construct proofs regarding non-existent objects.

[/quote']

 

1. True.

2. Prove it. Go far enough away from a forest so you cannot hear the tree.

3. To solve this paradox, you called it names. Smart.

4. In some cases. If you can, prove this question then. Didn't think so.

 

 

 

 

Close' date=' but this question does have an answer. [/quote']

 

I wasn't trying to answer. I was proving the insanity of this thread.

[bury the year]

The answer is Draco Straybyrn.

[CeDeFiA]

How do you know this question has an answer?

 

Draco knows the answer' date=' but won't give it away until someone states it.

[/quote']

 

That makes no sense and doesn't answer my question. If he won't tell you the answer, how do you know there is an answer?

 

Kizzi knows, and Draco seems to state he has a picture.

[Flinsbon]

So you're saying that the answer is not that the question is meaningless because the definitions of an immovable object and an unstoppable force do not allow both to exist in the same universe?

[CeDeFiA]

So you're saying that the answer is not that the question is meaningless because the definitions of an immovable object and an unstoppable force do not allow both to exist in the same universe?

 

No, it is a simple answer that can be expressed in EXACTLY 6 words.