2007-05-28 04:49:04 · 19 answers · asked by john 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Physics
What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? Although it is not really a particularly deep philosophical question, it is a classic paradox. An irresistible force can move any object. An immovable object cannot be moved. Hmm. Makes a person think.
What happens in real life, when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? Well, there are no irresistible forces. And, there are no immovable objects. So, the question has no answer. We do not live in a universe which allows irresistible forces and immovable objects.
So, the question is hypothetical, as we already knew. Let's imagine a universe which allows irresistible forces. Such a universe cannot allow immovable objects, as that would violate the very definition of our hypothetical universe. Let's imagine a universe which allows immovable objects. Again, such a universe cannot allow irresistible forces, as that would violate the very definition of our second hypothetical universe.
So, an irresistible force cannot meet an immovable object. As I said above, we do not live in a universe which allows irresistible forces and immovable objects. In fact, no universe can ever allow both irresistible forces and immovable objects. And, the question has no answer.
2007-05-28 04:52:48 · answer #1 · answered by BARROWMAN 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
If the object moves under the force, it isn't immovable; if the object doesn't move, the force isn't irresistible. There's no possible world in which an immovable object co-exists with an irresistible force.
2007-05-28 07:12:58 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Does the immovable object mean you and the irresistible force the girl of you dreams?
Then the immovable object will move irresistiblily.
2007-05-28 05:01:17 · answer #3 · answered by Freckles 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I guess the imovable object would say "Mr Irresistable force I presume" and the irresistable force would say "Good grief Immovable Object, splendid splendid, Unattainable Velocity has told me so much about you"
"Care for a game of shove halfpenny?"
2007-05-28 11:26:57 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
One of the most famous conundrums (conundri?) of all time is in fact a pointless semantic exercise. In a universe where an irresistible force exists there cannot be any such thing as an unmovable object, and vice versa. The existence of one excludes the possibility of the existence of the other.
2007-05-28 05:01:08 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is physically impossible to have an immovable object and and an irresistable (unstoppable) force. at the moment of impact one would give way to the other.
On the other hand....maybe that's what statred the Big Bang.
2007-05-28 04:59:35 · answer #6 · answered by Nicole E 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
David N, couldn't it be that it was the force that was moving and not the immovable object? ;)
And I have no idea, fatal attraction?
2007-05-28 05:31:21 · answer #7 · answered by Katy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Looking at the statement from the point of view of semantics...
The way the sentence is formed indicates that the object is in motion ("object MEETS...")
This indicates that the original statement is a fallacy.
.
2007-05-28 05:11:04 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
nothing. This is merely a word puzzle for the cranially challenged. Nothing is immovable nor is anything irresistible with the possible exception of Jessica Alba.
2007-05-28 04:52:40 · answer #9 · answered by Larry L 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
A contradictory statement is not clever. A contradictory statement is crap. Zen is not enlightenment. Zen is crap. If you want to know the sound of one hand clapping, set up a sound recorder and clap one hand. Play it back. There you are.
"Reflection...surprise...terror. For the future," Kosh
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
Taking this to its logical extreme, can you look out your own mouth?
2007-05-28 04:58:59 · answer #10 · answered by Uncle Al 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋