Poll: unstoppable object meets unmovable object

[Biosophilogical]

Nothing is immovable, therefore the immovable object must exist in a dimension outside of those pertaining to space, while the unstoppable object must exist as THE true frame of reference, so if it is moved, it isn't actually moved, the rest of the universe is moved instead. So neither object can affect the other.

Alternatively you can go with the 'unstoppable object is stationary' theory, I like both.

 

[Eliam_Dar]

The only unstoppable object is an immovable object. They can't meet at all.

Did you mean unstoppable force?

Yes, that is what he means. At least, that is what I presumed what he meant.

In that case, the unstoppable force wins. The result is called a black hole.

no, a black hole is the caused by a star collapsing into its own gravitational field. no external forces are involved.

 

[Escapefromwhatever]

EDIT: i know there is a super knife, super shield thingy thread...but this is a different situation

First off, its unstoppable force, not unstoppable object. Second, no it is not different. The knife in that thread is an immovable object, and the cube is an unstoppable force. Third, please put a little more effort into the way you introduce your threads. In this one you sort of expect us to know what you are talking about without explaining it. That is a no-no.

Wouldn't the knife be the unstoppable object and the cube be the unmoveable object?

Yes. That was a typo- I have since fixed it.

 

[lacktheknack]

It would bounce. It hasn't stopped, and the unmovable object hasn't moved.

when something bounces it stops for a fraction of a second...
I say nothing will happen because neither exist.

Sorry... I only got a "B" in Physics...

 

[Eliam_Dar]

Who gives a fuck!

the universe

 

[lacktheknack]

Who gives a fuck!

YOU probably should, the universe could explode if we aren't careful with these things.

 

[Hexenwolf]

Not possible.

By definition, if an unstoppable object exists, then an immovable object cannot exist (and vice versa). The existence of one precludes the existence of the other.

 

[Eliam_Dar]

Not possible.

By definition, if an unstoppable object exists, then an immovable object cannot exist (and vice versa). The existence of one precludes the existence of the other.

true, but at this point we are just trying to create conditions that could make it happen

 

[Invaderbrim]

Someone just watched the dark knight didn't they?

Personally, I think the only unstoppable force in the universe is Chuck Norris, and since he is Chuck Noriis He could just Round House kick the object into another dimension thus letting him pass.

 

[Zildjin81]

Why doesn't the unstoppable object hit the immovable barrier with such force that it bounces of?
The whole concept of this violates Newton's third law.

 

[Bladecatcher]

Dream Theater would write a song about it. And it would be awesome.

 

[Eliam_Dar]

Why doesn't the unstoppable object hit the immovable barrier with such force that it bounces of?
The whole concept of this violates Newton's third law.

boucing means a change of direction, a change of direction means a variation in the acceleration (depending on the angle it would be more or less) since a force is composed by mass and acceleration, a change in the acceleration would make the unstoppable object, stoppable, since the only way the force remains "unstoppable", is to accept that the acceleration is infinite (mass cannot be since mass can bre reunited at one point, think pre-big bang)

Newton's motion laws can only be used, since he did not considered unstoppable or unmmovable objects... on the contrary, his objetcs and forces can be moved and stopped.

 

[Caligulove]

they are the same thing I imagine.

 

[ethaninja]

Well if it hits it at a certain angle, it would have to slide. If it was dead along center, it would probably keep moving, but won't actually "go" anywhere, if you get my meaning.

 

[Sacman]

It would bounce. It hasn't stopped, and the unmovable object hasn't moved.

when something bounces it stops for a fraction of a second...
I say nothing will happen because neither exist.

Sorry... I only got a "B" in Physics...

here is the definition according to the dictionary under my bed(well one of them):
To move quickly up and then down, or vice versa, once or repeatedly.

and when something moves to the highest point or makes contact with an object and runs out of energy it will stop and gain energy either from the momentum from falling or from the reaction of hitting the immovable object, energy would be transferred to the immovable object and a reaction would occur and the transfer of energy doesn't happen instantaneously it means the energy from the unstoppable object would all be lost at the very moment of impact before the reaction can occur and send it off once more.

 

[mugetsu37]

Soulution 1: The immovable object is a hallow cylinder with a hole in each end, and the unstoppable object passes right through it.

Soulution 2: If the immovable object was, as stated, truly immovable, it would have defences against unstoppable objects. An example would be a anti-gravity field. When the unstoppable object passes through this, it does not decelerate, but still changes direction.

Solution three: The unstoppable object is not moving.

 

[Tracer Bullet]

Depends on what the unmovable object is, though there is only one...... Lou Ferrigno. What you though t i was gonna say Chuck Norris? Fuck that. What'd he do that was awesome enough to be better than the original Incredible Hulk? Steven Segal is better than him he made some crppy movies but he was more kar-ate! than chuck freakin' norris. Pleas don't tell him i said that though........... *he scares me* "Crunch" WHAT WAS THAT?!?! \


-------------------------------End Transmission-------------------------------------------------

 

[Iron Criterion]

So you mean like Chuck Norris vs Samual L Jackson?

 

[Eliam_Dar]

they are the same thing I imagine.

they cannot be the same thing by definition. something cannot be in motion and unmovable at the same time, unless of course you move the universe, so that object would be in motion but at the same place in relation with the universe... but since motion is relative, you need a reference to move a universe, which by definition contains everything... so how do you move that "everything", or better said, how do you realize a universe is moving without external references.

motion is relative, imagine for a momment that in the universe there is only one object, how do you know if it is moving or not? how do you measure it?... see the problem. Now make that object "x",a universe, where is it contained? how do you realize if is moving or not?

the real answer to this problem is that both cannot exist at the same universe.

 

[Eliam_Dar]

Soulution 1: The immovable object is a hallow cylinder with a hole in each end, and the unstoppable object passes right through it.

Soulution 2: If the immovable object was, as stated, truly immovable, it would have defences against unstoppable objects. An example would be a anti-gravity field. When the unstoppable object passes through this, it does not decelerate, but still changes direction.

Solution three: The unstoppable object is not moving.

if it is not moving is already stopped, so... you are changing the conditions