An old question forgot the answer?
What would happen when an unstoppable object collides with an immoveable object
Answers:
I think Ella Fitzgerald summed it up with.
When an irresistible force such as you
Meets an old immovable object like me
You can bet as sure as you live
Somethin's Gotta Give Somethin's Gotta Give
Somethin's Gotta Give
Anyway I think the question is meaningless, because the force and the object in question are impossible. People keep putting their own parameters on this question and making assumptions. The size of the objects wouldn't matter, nor would the mass or the speed or anything like that. If something is unstoppable it is unstoppable even if its moving at a snails pace. If its immovable it's immovable even if its the size of a flea. But it doesn't matter anyway cos neither are a possibility.
OUCH
S**t happens
Both would combine and explode into a huge amount of energy. Or the man stops arguing with the woman :).
The fomer slows down; the latter gets moved.
its the irresistable force and the immovable object.
so, if youre doing 40mph, and the other car is also doing 40, youll impact with the energy of a single car doing 80 when you hit a wall.
they both shake hands and call it day.
Man these are crappy answers.
I'm only guessing, but I think the unstoppable object would burst through the immoveable object. Like, pierce a hole in it. That would make sense to me at least but I'm no scientist.
I'm only really answering in case someone gives you the right answer and I can check back later. I know I can just put this Q on my "watch list" but that's really boring.
The immoveable object would just not move. End of story. As for the unstoppable object, it would still be unstoppable, but when it collides with the immovable object, it would have to either.
1. bounce or roll off the immovable object and be sent on a trajectory somewhere else.
2. break up into many pieces that go off in trajectories in other directions.
Thus, the immovable object is still in movement. Just maybe not the same speed or direction as before.
I thought that the question was what happens when an irresistible object meets an immovable object.
Guess what ? I believe the question was formulated originally to demonstrate what a paradox is. By using logic and the presumptions made in the question only, the following must be true.
Since the object one is unstoppable and object two is immoveable, then object one must continue to move thru object two since two is immovable. Since we presume only that the two objects have the stated properties and make no other assumptions. We know that in the physical world this result is impossible, so both objects must be ethereal (have no physical existence), otherwise they could not have the properties stipulated in the question.
Thus the original postulator of the question cannot have been living in our reality, because if the object is not physical it is not an object in our world.
Suggest STRONGLY that if you are he/she, you need to consult a psychiatrist about your delusions.
xmmmmmm it came to me.
before the collision their system (closed) had infinite momentum. so no mater what happens next we just know that the fraction the "wholle" body the two bodies , anyhting...would stil have to carry infinite momentum.
this is as close as i can get before presenting the equationgs of collisions and run a loto omaths with limit and derivatives theories in order to realise what is going on)
An interesting collision.
Well, would this violate the law of conservation of momentum? Your immovable object must have infinite mass. Your unstoppable object must have infinite momentum. It can't be mass because that would make it immovable so it must have infinite velocity. But that is not possible because nothing can travel at the speed of light. It would approach infinite mass anyway and we have just argued that can't be the case!
Neither are possible.
thats how & when you determine which one is the least indestrucable object.
The creation of anti-matter untill the masses are equal or neutralized.
It depends of the velocity and the masses of the bodies.
the unstoppable object would (depending on the size) either go through the immovable object or they would explode.
are the they not mutually exclusive? If an object is unstoppable then you cannot have something that is immovable and vice versa
if 3x -1=11, what is the value of x2+x?
why does space go on forever?
What length of open water does a swan need to safely take off and return to the river?
what is potash Alum?
Was the 1st walk on the moon real or a set up?We saw it on film,who set the camera?
how is it that when you rub your ringer round the top of a wine glass it makes that noise?
Why do fish blink if they're under water?
Do Whales pass wind?
Answers:
I think Ella Fitzgerald summed it up with.
When an irresistible force such as you
Meets an old immovable object like me
You can bet as sure as you live
Somethin's Gotta Give Somethin's Gotta Give
Somethin's Gotta Give
Anyway I think the question is meaningless, because the force and the object in question are impossible. People keep putting their own parameters on this question and making assumptions. The size of the objects wouldn't matter, nor would the mass or the speed or anything like that. If something is unstoppable it is unstoppable even if its moving at a snails pace. If its immovable it's immovable even if its the size of a flea. But it doesn't matter anyway cos neither are a possibility.
OUCH
S**t happens
Both would combine and explode into a huge amount of energy. Or the man stops arguing with the woman :).
The fomer slows down; the latter gets moved.
its the irresistable force and the immovable object.
so, if youre doing 40mph, and the other car is also doing 40, youll impact with the energy of a single car doing 80 when you hit a wall.
they both shake hands and call it day.
Man these are crappy answers.
I'm only guessing, but I think the unstoppable object would burst through the immoveable object. Like, pierce a hole in it. That would make sense to me at least but I'm no scientist.
I'm only really answering in case someone gives you the right answer and I can check back later. I know I can just put this Q on my "watch list" but that's really boring.
The immoveable object would just not move. End of story. As for the unstoppable object, it would still be unstoppable, but when it collides with the immovable object, it would have to either.
1. bounce or roll off the immovable object and be sent on a trajectory somewhere else.
2. break up into many pieces that go off in trajectories in other directions.
Thus, the immovable object is still in movement. Just maybe not the same speed or direction as before.
I thought that the question was what happens when an irresistible object meets an immovable object.
Guess what ? I believe the question was formulated originally to demonstrate what a paradox is. By using logic and the presumptions made in the question only, the following must be true.
Since the object one is unstoppable and object two is immoveable, then object one must continue to move thru object two since two is immovable. Since we presume only that the two objects have the stated properties and make no other assumptions. We know that in the physical world this result is impossible, so both objects must be ethereal (have no physical existence), otherwise they could not have the properties stipulated in the question.
Thus the original postulator of the question cannot have been living in our reality, because if the object is not physical it is not an object in our world.
Suggest STRONGLY that if you are he/she, you need to consult a psychiatrist about your delusions.
xmmmmmm it came to me.
before the collision their system (closed) had infinite momentum. so no mater what happens next we just know that the fraction the "wholle" body the two bodies , anyhting...would stil have to carry infinite momentum.
this is as close as i can get before presenting the equationgs of collisions and run a loto omaths with limit and derivatives theories in order to realise what is going on)
An interesting collision.
Well, would this violate the law of conservation of momentum? Your immovable object must have infinite mass. Your unstoppable object must have infinite momentum. It can't be mass because that would make it immovable so it must have infinite velocity. But that is not possible because nothing can travel at the speed of light. It would approach infinite mass anyway and we have just argued that can't be the case!
Neither are possible.
thats how & when you determine which one is the least indestrucable object.
The creation of anti-matter untill the masses are equal or neutralized.
It depends of the velocity and the masses of the bodies.
the unstoppable object would (depending on the size) either go through the immovable object or they would explode.
are the they not mutually exclusive? If an object is unstoppable then you cannot have something that is immovable and vice versa
The answers post by the user, for information only, UKQnA.com does not guarantee the right.