2007-02-08 03:57:35 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Physics
If the unstoppable object is truly unstoppable, and not merely imagined or assumed to be so, then of course it won't stop.
Likewise, if the immovable object is truly unmovable, and not merely imagined or assumed to be so, then of course, it will not move.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aoin.KIcvbbOxGTgVPk0MBUjzKIX?qid=20061127031219AAnPuJ9
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AhK72LQ5KvuahecY0_5OR2cjzKIX?qid=1006021514905
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjOfWKVotN0D9UVP9ZN_l8QjzKIX?qid=20070201181118AAdcljb
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmI.OACqZ15M.jyM4ymTJKUjzKIX?qid=1006050705941
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkMOCU6FlcbnqLxV4.T4kuUjzKIX?qid=1006031315117
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ArgV7cqm9EDe291S027gfivsy6IX?qid=20061221032101AAueAyY&show=7#profile-info-ffa0254b76a4ed1df0edf05c726bc99daa
2007-02-08 04:01:46 · answer #1 · answered by me 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Isaac Asimov answered this question rather neatly, I thought. I can't remember in which of his many books I read it (it was a long time ago), but the gist of his argument was this: A universe in which there exists such a thing as an irresistible force is, by definition, a universe which cannot also contain an immovable object. And a universe which contains an immovable object cannot, by definition, also contain an irresistible force. So the question is essentially meaningless: either the force is irresistible or the object is immovable, but not both. When an irresistible force such as you, Meets an old immovable object like me, You can bet, as sure as you li-i-i-ive; Somethin's gotta give Somethin's gotta give Somethin's gotta give The correct set-up would be "What would happen if an immovable object were confronted with an unstoppable force." We will have to further define out unstoppable force as having infinite momemtum (right?) and the immovable object having infinite inertia (right.) Therefore, our unstoppable force would have an infinite energy (measure this in joules/calories/whatever) and the unstoppable force would be able to absorb infinite energy. There would be an endless transfer of energy. The two would appear as if they are resting, but are actually transferring their infinite energies from one to the other. Equilibrium or a relation would never be established since we're dealing in the infinite regarding energy. Sad, but true
2016-05-24 06:52:52 · answer #2 · answered by Mary 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
this question is an example of a paradox, in this case "a self-contradictory and false proposition", more specifically this is a logical paradox.
it is theoretically possible that an unstoppable object or force could exist, but only in a universe in which there were no immovable objects, otherwise the object wouldn't have been unstoppable to begin with.
likewise, this universe could in theory could have an immovable objects, just as long as the universe didn't contain an unstoppable object or force, otherwise the object wouldn't have been immovable to begin with.
so, you can have either an unstoppable object, or an immovable object, but by definition you cannot have both at the same time!
the question is illogical and means that there is no answer, since the question does not make sense to begin with.
to read more/ twist your brain check out these links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxes
2007-02-10 06:15:50 · answer #3 · answered by bgnbgn00 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nothing.
Both those terms are abstract. An Immovable object is impossible, and so is an unstoppable object.
THe answer could be anything. You could say the world ends. But no answer is right or wrong. Since its all purely speculative and fictitious.
2007-02-08 04:01:35 · answer #4 · answered by Michael Dino C 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You are probably back to the 'Big Bang' theory.
Tremendous energy release, the immovable object and the unstoppable force simple fuse together and release their energy.
2007-02-08 11:51:06 · answer #5 · answered by Norrie 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the object is "unstoppable" It would pass through the immovable object. Like gamma radiation from space, it can pass right through anything and just keep on truckin like nothing happened.
2007-02-08 04:00:53 · answer #6 · answered by orange7770 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They join and the unstoppable object passes through.
2007-02-08 04:00:46 · answer #7 · answered by Grant d 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The unstoppable object would be deflected
2007-02-08 04:01:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
it hits the object and bounce because of newtons law 3 and 1 and 2
2007-02-08 04:04:41 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
This is not really a physics question, but one of language: the definition of the two objects is contradictory, and so is not possible.
2007-02-08 04:11:13 · answer #10 · answered by michael h 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋