So let's say you have an object that could crush anything and another object that could not be crushed at all.
If the first object, that couild crush anything, tried to crush the object that could not be crushed, what would happen?
2007-07-12 14:01:12 · 9 answers · asked by nerris121 4 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Physics
One of them would have to prove that it was not what it claimed to be, and resolve the stalemate.
- Either the all-crusher would succeed, crushing the so-called un-crushable object, proving that this was not un-crushable.
- Or the all-crusher would meet its match, and prove itself to not all-crushing, since the un-crushable object won't crush.
This is one of a series of questions based on contradictory starting premises, and these questions can not be resolved logically.
2007-07-12 14:15:58 · answer #1 · answered by Don E Knows 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This may sound like a physics question, but it's really just an exercise in bad logic. If you have "an object that could crush anything," the existence of such an object would, by definition, preclude the existence any anything uncrushable. And vice versa. Now if you had an object you _think_ could crush anything, and another you _suspect_ is uncrushable, you could put them together and find out what's what.
2007-07-12 21:12:32 · answer #2 · answered by stork5100 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is more of a philosophical question, along the lines of "Can god create a rock so big that even he can't lift it?". Two mutually exclusive things cannot exist simultaneously. You cannot have a square that is also simultaneously a circle.
An uncrushable object would be one with an infinite elastic modulus and an infinite compressive strength. There are no such objects.
An object that could crush anything would be one capable of exerting an infinite compressive force. There are no such objects.
2007-07-12 21:08:18 · answer #3 · answered by lithiumdeuteride 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They would be one in the same. To be able to crush anything means it would not be conversely crushed by anything. You would have an object that meets both sets of criteria. If you had a pair of such object, and tried to compress them together you would simply expend a lot of energy but do no net work.
2007-07-12 21:13:14 · answer #4 · answered by roketman63 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is an ancient Chinese story about a guy who tried to sell a spear that could poke through any shield and a shield that could not be poked through by any spear. The Chinese words for "spear" and "shield" put together form a new word meaning "contradiction" or "conflict" in modern Chinese.
Your question has the same kind of "spearshield" in it.
2007-07-12 21:46:40 · answer #5 · answered by harakiri 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Invalid solution. If the object could crunch anything, then the other object is not uncrunchable. It may be nearly uncrunchable, or uncrunchable under most circumstances, but it is not totally uncrunchable. I'm sorry that that wasn't the answer that you were looking for.
Hope that helped.
2007-07-12 21:08:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both objects cannot exist in the same universe, by definition.
2007-07-12 22:29:57 · answer #7 · answered by tinfoil666 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Time to turn off WWE and get back to your homework.
2007-07-12 21:21:37 · answer #8 · answered by 7_7_7 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
nothing- they are identical
2007-07-12 21:20:39 · answer #9 · answered by wlliam w 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋