I like this question. Nobody knows the answer but me.
2007-01-29 17:13:02 · 9 answers · asked by wwwwwwwfe 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Physics
Robert H: LOL! I can STILL postulate anything I want and you have STILL not answered the question despite several attempts!
2007-01-29 18:38:36 · update #1
That's like saying "What if an unanswerable question is given to somebody who can answer any question?"
You can sit around and make up any contradictory definitions you want to. But if the things you're defining can't exist in the real world then it's a pointless waste of time to ask questions like this.
Just my opinion.
2007-01-30 02:46:23 · answer #1 · answered by genericman1998 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is an ambiguous question and can be considered a paradox. First I will assume your usage of "unstoppable" refers to just a single reference frame. Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity implies the only velocity that an object can become unstoppable regarding a single reference frame is at the speed of light. Furthermore, whatever achieves that speed when viewed from the reference frame would possess a mass of zero. Thus if two unstoppable objects were to collide head on, they would simply traverse each other and continue onward.
On a more complex interpretation, I will assume that these objects are viewed from separate reference frames. The properties of zero mass and speed of light still hold but the objects viewed from just each reference frame do not posses the same velocity of c unless both reference frames are parallel and stationary. Assuming that is not the case, then one object viewed from the other's reference frame would not reach the speed of light, so thus it is not unstoppable, but from its own reference frame, does reach the speed of light and is unstoppable. However, in both cases, the other object would possess mass while its own object does not, so nothing would happen to the object with mass but the object that is massless will be reflected by the object with mass at the speed of light.
2007-01-30 03:50:34 · answer #2 · answered by xboxandhalo2 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Neither would stop, they would phase right through each other.
Seems kind of silly doesn't it.
Here's the thing. Nothing is unstopable! Just as nothing is unmovable, or notihng is irresistable.
While in a thought question, it is allowed to postulate something that does not exist in reality, you can not postulate two unreal things things that are mutally exclusive. That is a big no-no.
So, if you postulate one unstopable object, you can not have another, or a force that could stop it. They can not exist together.
2007-01-30 01:27:57 · answer #3 · answered by robpurpleblazekamp 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Good question.
1) Are these really unstoppable - or do we merely think they are?
But, if they`d meet head on, the most likely scenario would be that the "weaker" of the objects "split" and continues in pieces.
Therefore both would continue, but the one in parts.
Otherwise we`ll have a "big bang" type of event with lots of smaller parts going on. (both crumble over the force of the impact)
2007-01-30 01:29:24 · answer #4 · answered by U_S_S_Enterprise 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
depending on their solidity. if they were gasses, they would pass through each other and continue. Same would happen to liquids. Solids would smash to smithereens.
2007-01-30 02:05:29 · answer #5 · answered by luosechi 駱士基 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
they would both blow up and disappear into oblivion because the nature of physics would not be able to calculate what would happen.
2007-01-30 01:26:45 · answer #6 · answered by michaelchavez07 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
im just guessing now hehe maybe a blackhole
2007-02-02 01:53:20 · answer #7 · answered by arn_14 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
really depends on the coefficient of restitution.
2007-01-30 01:29:53 · answer #8 · answered by abcdefghijk 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
they would both continue...
2007-01-30 01:20:07 · answer #9 · answered by Dave ! 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋