Poll: unstoppable object meets unmovable object
- Thread starter Joe Matsuda
- Start date
Recommended Videos
the unstoppable force would go around the immovable object... if not... the universe will slowly implode.
First, NOTHING CAN TRAVEL AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT EVER.TZer0 said:
EVER.
Faster, yes, slower, yes, but it cannot travel AT the speed of light as then you divide by zero. (Seriously, that's the reason)
So the equation for the momentum of these two objects is
(Infinity)(0) + (Infinity)(Near to C) = (Infinity)(0) + (Infinity)(Near to C)
The objects are basically the same, apart from the immovable one is not moving and the unstoppable one is. They must both have a mass of infinity to meet those definitions, the immovable object my definition will always have a velocity of 0 and the unstoppable object's velocity will be 99.99% of the Speed of light (C).
The equation predicts no change, which is pretty much impossible as for the unstoppable object to continue moving at near to C it would have to bounce off, which isn't shown in the equation (The velocity would be negative, which breaks the equation)
Thus, only one object can exist and the question is moot as they will never meet.
I love it when people without any scientific background quote stuff that people with scientific backgrounds have told them, and get the whole thing wrong. S'kinda cute, like passive-aggressiveness or watching kids talking about who's Dad's the toughest =p
When ever someone tells you an object can't move faster than light, ask them "Relative to what?" Because, by basic relativity, if two objects have a speed limit of 0.9c (speed of light), and are moving in opposite directions to you, then they're both moving at their maximum speed in your frame of reference, however, in the reference frame of any of these objects, the other is moving at 1.8c, which is faster than a speed of light and oh dear I've gone cross-eyed... (of course that's ignoring the effects of travelling close to the speed of light with stuff like Lorentz Transformation and all that jazz I can't be bothered going into. There's an analytical solution that says relative to one object the other looks to be going at a completely different speed than it does to the observer between the two objects and whatnot. S'all very complex really, if you're interested in this stuff ask someone at your local university's physics department, you'll probably get thrown out by security, but hey, not harm in trying, right?)
Anyways, stand back, I have some science here! D=
It's a pointless question. You might as well ask what would happen if Buddha headbutted Satan.
Or, the comic book equivalent I know this is has probably been derived from, "What would happen if the Juggernaut ran into the Blob" (Answer: "To be continued in the next exciting issue!")
The moving object has to be moving relative to something. If you assume it's moving relative to the unstoppable object, then in the reference frame of this object, the unmoveable object is already moving towards them.
Though, as a physicist, making the assumption these objects can exist (as it's been stated a few times before, they can't), the most probable results would be that:
1. Both objects are annihilated.
2. Moving object passes through unmoving one.
3. Assuming the object is only unmovable in it's whole, the unmovable object would would break into it's separate components
4. Ditto for unstoppable object.
However, in a realistic scenario, an "unstoppable" object and an "unmovable" object are simple objects assumed to have an infinite mass, as their mass is much greater (ie, several orders of magnitude higher) than anything else. Ie, if you were comparing the collision of the earth and a tennis ball, it would be easier to model the earth as an unmovable object as it's mass is about 27 orders of magnitude higher than the tennis ball (a Tennis ball would have a mass of about 0.01 kg, while the Earth's mass is around 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg, 5.9736*10**24 kg, if you're smart). An unstoppable object in this case would be, say, Mars, if it had been displaced out of it's orbit and was heading directly towards your tennis ball. Mars has a mass of around 6.4185*10**23 kg, which means that when it hits earth it would slightly accelerate the Earth away from it. You'd also not be playing Tennis anytime soon, but that's a different story altogether!
I think it's funny how a lot of people love to blurt out this one rule of special relativity like they're some kind of mini-Einstein without actually having a full grasp on the most basic forms of relativity or mathematical modelling...
When ever someone tells you an object can't move faster than light, ask them "Relative to what?" Because, by basic relativity, if two objects have a speed limit of 0.9c (speed of light), and are moving in opposite directions to you, then they're both moving at their maximum speed in your frame of reference, however, in the reference frame of any of these objects, the other is moving at 1.8c, which is faster than a speed of light and oh dear I've gone cross-eyed... (of course that's ignoring the effects of travelling close to the speed of light with stuff like Lorentz Transformation and all that jazz I can't be bothered going into. There's an analytical solution that says relative to one object the other looks to be going at a completely different speed than it does to the observer between the two objects and whatnot. S'all very complex really, if you're interested in this stuff ask someone at your local university's physics department, you'll probably get thrown out by security, but hey, not harm in trying, right?)
Anyways, stand back, I have some science here! D=
It's a pointless question. You might as well ask what would happen if Buddha headbutted Satan.
Or, the comic book equivalent I know this is has probably been derived from, "What would happen if the Juggernaut ran into the Blob" (Answer: "To be continued in the next exciting issue!")
The moving object has to be moving relative to something. If you assume it's moving relative to the unstoppable object, then in the reference frame of this object, the unmoveable object is already moving towards them.
Though, as a physicist, making the assumption these objects can exist (as it's been stated a few times before, they can't), the most probable results would be that:
1. Both objects are annihilated.
2. Moving object passes through unmoving one.
3. Assuming the object is only unmovable in it's whole, the unmovable object would would break into it's separate components
4. Ditto for unstoppable object.
However, in a realistic scenario, an "unstoppable" object and an "unmovable" object are simple objects assumed to have an infinite mass, as their mass is much greater (ie, several orders of magnitude higher) than anything else. Ie, if you were comparing the collision of the earth and a tennis ball, it would be easier to model the earth as an unmovable object as it's mass is about 27 orders of magnitude higher than the tennis ball (a Tennis ball would have a mass of about 0.01 kg, while the Earth's mass is around 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg, 5.9736*10**24 kg, if you're smart). An unstoppable object in this case would be, say, Mars, if it had been displaced out of it's orbit and was heading directly towards your tennis ball. Mars has a mass of around 6.4185*10**23 kg, which means that when it hits earth it would slightly accelerate the Earth away from it. You'd also not be playing Tennis anytime soon, but that's a different story altogether!
I think it's funny how a lot of people love to blurt out this one rule of special relativity like they're some kind of mini-Einstein without actually having a full grasp on the most basic forms of relativity or mathematical modelling...
No I mean matter is mostly empty space. If you have a nucleus the size of a baseball, the closest electron would be approximately 2 miles away. The reason matter appears to take up so much space is because of repulsive forces between electrons and protons. If you could overcome these electrostatic forces, solid matter could pass through each other, and because no surfaces would be touching, friction would be negligible.Eliam_Dar said:
I hate to jump into the middle of a theoretical argument like this, but doesn't LIGHT travel at THE SPEED OF LIGHT? I mean, literally, by definition, whatever speed light is traveling at is the speed of light (I know it's a defined number, and it doesn't change on it's own). Just kind of wanted to point that out.Kazturkey said:
If it doesn't count, why did the OP put in a new entry at the polls when I said it? (It was not there before.)WestMountain said:There are no such thing as unmoveable objects or unstoppable objects, there never will beThat wouldnt count because the unstoppable would still be in the same spot of the universe because the universe is everything, you get it?FalloutJack said:
if we factor in the possability of a multiverse, then it counts...sorta....i just really thought it was a cool theory......FalloutJack said:If it doesn't count, why did the OP put in a new entry at the polls when I said it? (It was not there before.)WestMountain said:There are no such thing as unmoveable objects or unstoppable objects, there never will beThat wouldnt count because the unstoppable would still be in the same spot of the universe because the universe is everything, you get it?FalloutJack said: