if we have (hypotetically) an armour that cant be penetrated and a bullet that can penetrate anything...?

Question

if we shot the bullet on that armor, what happens?

Answer 1

Your hypothesis are self-contradictory. Not a good start for a thought experiment.

Answer 2

I think I see what your saying
just because some thing can't be penetrated hypothetically, doesn't mean when you actually try and penetrate it, it will always be true.

So depending if that hypothesis about the armor is right or not, the bullet will penetrate or it won't.

Or maybe it won't go all the way through or something

Answer 3

this is a re-wording of a very old question:
"what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?"

the answer is that the premise of the question contradicts itself:

if armor that can not be penetrated exists, then a bullet that penetrates anything can not exist

if a bullet that can penetrate anything exists, then armor that can not be penetrated can not exist

you can't have it both ways

Answer 4

What you described is a Chinese term for self contraction. Centuries ago, the idiom goes, someone offered to sell a spear that could penetrate any armour. Then he turned around and offered a shield or armour that was no weapon could penetrate. So the 2 character term "spear-armour" is commonly used to describe self-contradiction.

Answer 5

We find out that either the bullet can't penetrate everything, or that the armour can be penetrated. You can't have both possibilities, one of them will win out.

Answer 6

The bullet will be reflected.

Answer 7

You can't have both in the same universe, not even hypothetically.

Answer 8

we just cant shoot at our own