If its unmoveable, it won't move. If it's unstoppable, it can't be stopped. The unmoveable will not move and the unstoppable will just MOVE on.
2006-12-16 02:33:25
·
answer #1
·
answered by ConstElation 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
This is a thougt experiment that deals with two concepts that are contridictory to one another.
If unstoppable forces exist, there cannot be immovable objects.
If immovable objects exist, there cannot be unstoppable forces.
Worse, these two concepts really have no bearing in reality. Nothing ever stops moving. The universe is expanding, the sun is traveling around the center of the galaxy, and the earth around the sun. I don't believe that "forces" can be quantified as "stoppable" or "unstoppable" as the four forces are related directly to matter--Gravity, Electromagnetic force, Strong Nuclear force, and Weak nuclear force. These forces don't start and stop--they are part of matter!
Now, as for a force meaning a moving object, (force = Mass x Acceleration), the bigger and faster mass will always win, but not completely. Simply put, when you jump into the air, you are actually pushing yourself away from the earth, and the earth away from you! In the grand scheme, the Earth doesn't notice you jumping--but if you did the math, you would find that your miniscule mass did in fact have a VERY tiny effect on the earth (which was corrected when gravity pulled you back down).
This question is similar to how does the arrow ever get to the target if it can only travel halfway, then halfway again, half again...etc. It should never reach the target! While this may seem a valid argument, it is not true because quite clearly the arrow hits the target and stops. The arrow transfers energy to the target -thunk!-
Well, that's my take on it, anyway. This is more of a philosophy question than physics, but a good question because it makes one stop and think.
2006-12-16 04:49:28
·
answer #2
·
answered by ~XenoFluX 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Most of the people answering this question are assuming the force here is the impulse created by the momentum of a moving object, ie contact forces. By that definition, gravity and Coulomb's force (electrostatics) do not exist.
Let's try thinking about a non-contact force, like gravity. Imagine an object sitting atop a pedestal, like an Atlas stone at the strong man competitions. Once the stone is on the pedestal, it has stopped moving. Gravity is still pulling down on it, but the object is not moving. That is one possible solution to the problem: nothing happens.
Now, for those of you who see the flaw in this argument, yes, the object is immobile because there is a second force (normal force) opposing the motion of the first force, which defines the immobility of the Atlas stone. The point is, an object cannot be unmovable unless some external force is keeping it bound - Newton's first law says that an object will stay at rest until a force acts on it. If one force acts and the object is still at rest, clearly a second force must have counterbalanced the first.
2006-12-16 02:56:30
·
answer #3
·
answered by woocowgomu 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well inorder for the unmoveable object to really be un-force lets look at how they work. Well lets consider an unstopable force now. It would have to know its position in space time and keep its movements in that space time exactly forward from where it started moving from. Its existance would prove that times not moving in phazes and everything runs smoothly without having stops of any kind. Now as for an unmoveable force the opposite is probably true it would prove that time does move in phazes and that everything moves in steps time wise it having the slowest possible step in time. OK so what have we found out here? That both these objects can NOT exist in the same system of time if they did one would have to "break" the other before they ever even meet. So the question is rigged before its even asked and the outcome is randomly (what ever randomly means) picked other wise the whole of space time and ur brain melt into a pile of goo. Lets just hope this unstopable force we call the universe never runs into an unmoveable force altho I suspect the universe would win id rather not risk it. :)
2006-12-16 03:13:37
·
answer #4
·
answered by magpiesmn 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
That relies upon on the type of the forces, the unstopable stress may likely hit the article and look off at an attitude and keep getting in yet another route at the same time as the article may stay in position.
2016-11-26 22:35:21
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I would imagine that the unmovable object would probably explode if the unstoppable force was forceful enough. Otherwize the force would probably rebound off the object and change direction.
2006-12-16 02:32:13
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
There's no such thing as an unmovable object...the universe is too dynamic for such a thing.
The only unmovable things are "sitting still" upon something with a larger gravitational field...which is no doubt moving.
2006-12-16 02:33:25
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
idea1.these objects cannot exist because they defy the laws of physics
idea2.the property's of the objects cause them to keep on moving and keep on unmoving with out affecting each other by some phenomenon.
idea3.they surrender
2006-12-16 15:54:10
·
answer #8
·
answered by the professor 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Firest find out how fast and at what angle the force meets the unmovable.
2006-12-16 02:41:13
·
answer #9
·
answered by element_op 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
An elastic collision happens. The force bounces off the object with the same momentum it had when it hit it.
2006-12-16 03:08:50
·
answer #10
·
answered by Skysong 3
·
0⤊
1⤋