Poll: unstoppable object meets unmovable object

[Eliam_Dar]

z

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

I don't believe that I am changing the conditions at all. If an unstoppable object was not moving initially it does not mean that it becomes stoppable. It only means that it has yet to be moved. Putting aside the logic that in order for something to be unstoppable it's mass would be such that it would also be unmovable from a state of rest, there is no reason why one could not make said object to move.

well, a unstoppable object (or force) must be in motion to reach that state. How do you stop something that is not moving?

as for how to make somthing unstoppable, since force is a composed by mass and acceleration, motion is defined by acceleration, not mass (though mass cannot be cero), to make it unstoppable acceleration should be infinite. If the object is not moving, its mass is constant, yet the acceleration is not existent. so an object cannot be unstoppable (which implies motion) and unmovable (which implies the same position in the universe) at the same time... unless of course you move the universe... which does not solve the paradox anyway.

and that's it for today... going to sleep

 

[skeliton112]

How can it be unmovable? How can it be unstopable? If you can answer these questions i might answer with somthin.

 

[Do4600]

The server crashes?

 

[Eliam_Dar]

How can it be unmovable? How can it be unstopable? If you can answer these questions i might answer with somthin.

well that is exactly the point. Theoretically both cannot exist at the same time, at the same universe (this is an abstraction so don't think "universe" in terms of tthe actual universe). By definition one voids the conditions of the other.

and now I am really going to go to sleep, I have an exam tomorrow and it is 3:25am here

 

[SD-Fiend]

they both cease to exist for simplicity

 

[InsertWittyName]

They cannot exist together unstoppable means nothing can move it, if there is something that is unmovable that means one of them just to counter act the other, leaving either:
1)an unstoppable object and an object which can be moved by all but the unstoppable or
2) an unmovable object and an object which can move through anything except the former.

 

[SD-Fiend]

did you get this idea from x men comics from what i remember juggernaut ( the unstoppable force ) was attacking the blob ( the unmoveablle object ) and juggernaut said they both almoast died if it wasnt for the fact that the blob had loose fitting

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

Define "unmovable".

Sure, it cannot move. Which means it stays in the same place forever. But in the same place compared to what? For example, if it's on the ground, will it stay on the ground forever? But the Earth moves, so if it stayed on the same spot it would be moving along with the Earth. Even the Sun moves in the galaxy, and in turn the galaxy moves in the universe at a speed beyond imagining, and we don't even know what's beyond that.

I guess what I'm saying is that either you define "unmovable" as something that's only unmovable from a certain perspective, in which case the unstoppable object will move it, along with whatever you're using as a point of reference (for example, if the unmovable object is unmovable compared to the surface of the Earth, it would simply move the Earth), or you define "unmovable" as in some universal unchangeable constant, in which case I think the whole situation is beyond human understanding.

But either way, in this case "unstoppable" doesn't mean it can't change directions, so I'm gonna say it'll just bounce off the unmovable object and keep on going.

 

[NeutralDrow]

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.

Counting gravity as a fundamental force and the leftover mass of a star as the immovable object, and considering the compression of neutronium into a singularity as moving the immovable object. A bit of stretch, I know, but still...

I love this discussions it makes you use your brain.

the problem that I see there is that gravity (which is a form of acceleration) would be meaningless without an object to attract, since its a force that can only be applied to the existing object (which is unmovable).... And the star that created a black hole is already in motion, since it is part of a galaxy =)

Perhaps, but if you look at it another way, the unmovable object is the resulting chunk of neutronium rather than the star (assuming a large enough star). Gravity is meaningless without an object to attract, but that essentially means gravity is never meaningless, since anything with mass inherently has self-affecting gravity. In this view, the unstoppable force is the gravity of the neutron star, which is made of the most densely packed matter possible. The immovability, of course, would be the fact that particles cannot exist in the same space, so a particle with literally no empty space cannot merge with another. The fact that gravity has already been enough to overcome the strong and weak nuclear forces should tell one thing, but enough mass and the gravitational force becomes strong enough to move the immovable chunk of neutronium inward, imploding it and leading to that Newtonian logic-defying concept of a singularity.

As for that last part...it kinda ruins the thought experiment when you take into account that there really is no such thing as an immovable object!

if we look to the black hole only (removing motion relations to make it unmmovable), we are actually seeing a potential force (unstoppable), which pulls objects to the center of the black hole (potential since it would only be triggered if an object enters the black hole's event horizon) but once triggered, by the nature of the force, it would only move object to (and if we accept tha the matter in a black hole is so compacted that is indeed a hole) the center of the black hole, once on the center, the nature of the force (spherical, pulling to the center) will stop the object again falling into a paradox.

...what?

 

[LuntiX]

Considering neither of them are unbreakable, they'd probably break.

 

[ToxinArrow]

No such thing as either, so this is a pointless discussion.

 

[TOGSolid]

Then the objects divide by zero.

FFFFFF Ninja'd.

 

[FROGGEman2]

But it's not invincible, so it would just break.

 

[Kinguendo]

Erm, the term is "The unstoppable force meets the immovable object".

 

[Darkwolf9]

There powers would theoretically cancel each other out and thus be treated like normal objects. Depending on what the objects are the unstoppable object would either bounce of and go the another way or they may break each other down.

 

[peduncle]

depends what angle they met. =) I'm being picky now... what's the word... I can't think of it right now... When someone's making a big deal over small details. >.<

... a dick?

anyways, the moving object will appear to have stopped moving, but over time all the atoms will have forced their way threw the un moving one, and it would keep going.

 

[FalloutJack]

None of the answers above.

The answer is...the unstoppable object hits the unmovable object and then the entire universe starts moving. Basically, the unmovable one is anchored to the universe, and the unstoppable one literally CAN'T stop. So, to satisfy all field, the universe has to give and thus the unstoppable object pushes the universe around while the unmovable one still sits stationary.

I think we have a winner, please accept your prize of a cookie and a trophy for this victory

Spoiler: Cookie

Spoiler: Trophy

Honestly, I've never thought of this question like that

sorry but the universe cannot move, as I explained above, even if we accepted so, the conditions of the paradox make it remain a paradox

Ah, don't be a spoil-sport. I was just thinking outside the box.

Now, me and my gigantic cookie and the trophy are gonna have some quality time. Where's the milk?

EDIT: Hey, cool! He put in a new entry, thanks to me! Whoo!

 

[Deleted]

An unmovable object would need all the mass in the world, so nothing will be there to move it.
An unstoppable force would need all the energy in the world, but it can't have kinetic energy because all the mass is being used up by the unmovable object.

Now excuse me I'll be having sex.