2006-07-08 20:26:53 · 21 answers · asked by dannysci17 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Mythology & Folklore
Infinite enrgy vs infinite mass?
Tricky one.
It'd make a hell of a bang!
2006-07-10 22:56:15 · answer #1 · answered by amusedbystander 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Neither would the force be stoped or the immovable object be moved.
You do realise that forces act on stationary objects don't you? How do you think you hold your hand up in the air?
Were either of these things to actually exist the situation is this:
The immovable object refuses to move, as it excerts an equal, but opposite (unstoppable) force, acting in the opposite direction of the unstoppable force.
2006-07-08 21:16:42 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The people who are saying one or the other would be proven false have the right of it. Thusly:
In any universe where there is a force that cannot be stopped, there can, by definition, be no such thing as an immovable object. And vice-versa.
So the answer is, you would find out which one was not really what it was supposed to be.
2006-07-09 14:41:12 · answer #3 · answered by tyrsson58 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The unstoppable force would go through the immovable object and continue on.
Even though an immovable object can't be moved, it can be broken.
2006-07-09 05:52:59 · answer #4 · answered by classyjazzcreations 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the unstoppable force like the wind or the wall of water would flow around the immovable object. the force would not have stopped and the object would not have moved.
2006-07-08 21:24:30 · answer #5 · answered by rosevallie 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because of the fact the stress is unstoppable it ought to have an infinite fee. while this infinite tension is presented in touch with the immovable merchandise, the immovable merchandise additionally should exert an infinite tension interior the different direction. infinity - infinity does not make experience. those type of questions are implicitly pointing out infinite parts and your attempting to do operations on them which you would be able to not, considering you are able to not think of of infinity as a kind. yet then back which you additionally could make your man or woman assumptions of what you mean by ability of an unstoppable tension and what the regulations are.
2016-12-08 17:29:09 · answer #6 · answered by kadlec 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
one would move on top of the other. I guess the Force would go under or over the immovable object just like Plate Tectonics.
2006-07-08 20:36:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The question is meaningless, because there is neither an "unstoppable" force nor are there any "immovable" objects.
2006-07-08 20:31:36 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I doubt anything is either unstoppable or immovable. Therefore, the question is moot.
2006-07-08 20:32:31 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Chaos
2006-07-09 03:22:44 · answer #10 · answered by Beeman11 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe any matter involved would be transformed into energy, as happens in nuclear fusion. This is the theory of relativity.
2006-07-08 20:33:38 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋