[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 34 KB, 500x372, big-crash-scene-42.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1195864 No.1195864 [Reply] [Original]

Unstoppable Force meets the Immovable Object

What happens

>> No.1195870

both objects pass through each other via quantum tunneling

>> No.1195883

unstoppable force bounces

>> No.1195884

Depends on the frame of reference the immovable object is in.

>> No.1195888

>>1195864
>1=2
>What happens?

>> No.1195899

>>1195888

universe either collapses or rips apart. I'm not kidding.

>> No.1195897
File: 21 KB, 380x255, 1260149121378.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1195897

Unstoppable Force meets the Immovable Object

The troll is what happens

>> No.1195901

Well as long as we're ignoring the physical laws of the universe to make this happen, I figure they'll both turn into unicorns and pixie dust.

>> No.1195902
File: 31 KB, 458x319, 1275360850068.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1195902

>>1195897

>> No.1195903

>>1195883
then that means it stopped

>> No.1195907

This.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTSAkwrylMI

>> No.1195913

Unstoppable force means infinite energy.
Immovable object means infinite mass.
Infinite energy means infinite mass.

You now have two immovable objects.

>> No.1195925

How exactly does a force meet anything? An infinite force field? Infinite momentum?

>> No.1195927

>>1195913

>implying that a body with infinite mass is immovable

>> No.1195933

>>1195927

Yeah, no... It's not implied, that's exactly what it means.

>> No.1195939

>>1195933

physics fail. You don't even need infinite energy to move infinite mass.

>> No.1195943

The correct answer is BOTH CANNOT COEXIST IN ONE UNIVERSE

>Bob is the tallest person in the room
>Adam is the tallest person in the room
>Who's taller, Bob or Adam?
>HURR DURR HURR

>> No.1195946

>>1195939
You need more than infinite energy to move an infinite mass, by definition. That reference frame's never going anywhere.

>> No.1195948
File: 589 KB, 145x798, srsly.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1195948

>>1195899
>Im not kidding.

>> No.1195959

>>1195946

Negative. Something with infinite mass (a large black hole) is easily moved by a body without infinite mass or energy (a star).

>> No.1195961

Big Bang

>> No.1195967

HA!
LOOPHOLE!
Immovable object breaks.

>> No.1195971

Orgasm:
Unstoppable Force = Immovable Object

>> No.1195974

>>1195967

break = move

if it can't move, it can't break.

prove me wrong

>> No.1195981

>>1195943

Science operates on appropriate definitions even before data can be taken. In other words, THIS.

>> No.1195989

>>1195974
Infinite energy going into object == heat
Heat -> Phase change
Immovable object becomes a gas

>> No.1196008

Would require infinite energy, and to attain infinite energy, you would need to exceed the speed of light, which is impossible to do and I'm a no fun faggot.

>> No.1196011

there cannot be a force with infinite energy in a finite universe, and if there was an object with infinite mass then it would collapse in on itself.

>> No.1196013

You cant have both in the same universe.
If there is an unstoppable force, there cannot be an inmmovable object. and vice versa.

If A exist then B doesn't
If B exist then A doesn't
You cant have both in the same universe.

It is not a physics problem, its a logic problem.

>> No.1196014

i think its impossible to tell because both would require infinite mass which is impossible to predict because infinite isn't a real number

>> No.1196033

>>1195974
Okay, I can.

"You're lying." Done. I proved you wrong.

>> No.1196045

Assuming infinity as an existing value, energy would transfer thus making the Unstoppable Force into the Immovable Object and vice-versa.

>> No.1196061

>>1195864
An atheist is born when that happens.

>> No.1196068

>>1195864
>>1195864
>>1195864
The unstopable force can move around the immovable object!

>> No.1196072

What happens

An unimaginable result.

>> No.1196084

That's when we divide by zero

>> No.1196101

No object is immovable, and no force is unstoppable. The hypothetical can only be a hypothetical, meaning that there isn't an answer.

>> No.1196118

>>1196101

There is a hypothetical answer, i.e. a theory (a geuss).

>> No.1196130

>>1196101
A mental simulation using imigination.

>> No.1196142

>>1196118
>>1196130

See >>1195943
Is Bob taller than Adam? It's just a hypothetical question, there's a hypothetical answer.

>> No.1196148

>>1196142

The tallest person is the one you aren't observing. By observing adam, you are changing his location, making bob taller. simple gravity, bro.

>> No.1196151

>>1195864
deflects.

>> No.1196152

>>1196118
>ie a theory

You mean hypothesis. A theory is a claim that has been rigorously tested and proven and/or accepted by the scientific community .

>> No.1196156

>>1196151
Brilliant

>> No.1196161

>>1196152

>implying the scientific community accepts the theory of evolution

last time i checked it was split 50/50 between ID and evolution

>> No.1196166
File: 41 KB, 486x682, 1215671663658.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1196166

>>1196148

>> No.1196361

>>1195864
I always went with the idea that the force was reflected and remained unstoppable in another direction. Then someone on this board brought up the possibility that the force simply passes through the object and continues in the same direction with the object unaffected.

It's amazing how asspained some of the people on this board gets. Yes, nothing in reality we have observed so far works that way. Get over it. If you cannot take an inquiry for only the defined parameters, if you are forever assuming and redefining everything to your own comforts, then you cannot think critically enough to make any real discoveries.

>> No.1196704

>>1196152
>A theory is a claim that has been rigorously tested and proven and/or accepted by the scientific community .


I think that because the unstoppable "force" would have infinite energy, it must then have an ever increasing speed, but as you approach a time interval of infinity you approach the speed of light which cannot be breached, this slowing time. As time slows, momentum slows continually and thus the unstoppable force can never meet the unmovable object thus disproving the situation and ergo, no possible answer.

A theory is something that cannot be disproven, not something that is proven.

>> No.1196711

>>1196704
Oops, those paragraphs should be in reverse order.

>> No.1196755
File: 33 KB, 512x384, yrrdt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1196755

>>1196161

Where the fuck did you check that? Are you retarded? Cite your shitty statistics so we can laugh at Christian science and its blatant ignorance.

>> No.1196927

An enormous amount of energy would be released thus tearing the universe. Also at the same time the unstoppable force would would multiply. and the immovable object would stay immovable.

>> No.1196974

An enormous amount of energy would be released thus tearing the universe in two. Also at the same time the unstoppable force would would multiply. and the immovable object would stay immovable.

time travel.

>> No.1196994

both are impossible, dipshit... that's why it's a paradox. Not even worth thinking about.

>> No.1197016
File: 51 KB, 814x500, notamused.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1197016

>>1195959
>black hole
>infinite mass

>> No.1197086

The unstoppable object will move apart like 2 magnets with same poles

>> No.1197302
File: 43 KB, 400x394, 1274629691722.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1197302

Unstoppable force changes direction, but isn't stopped. my $.02

>> No.1197316

>>1195943
winner

>> No.1197317

A circle is a square. Which one's squarer?

>> No.1197347

Chaos happens.

>> No.1197352

jesus people, quit fucking around with mass and energy. the question is not physics.

an "immovable object" by definition means that it cannot be moved by any force. the idea of an "immovable object" is therefore inconsistent with the idea of an "unstoppable force."

likewise the "unstoppable force" implies that lack of existence of any kind of "immovable object." therefore, the two concepts are simply incompatible.

no need to invoke mass/energy. anybody who does clearly knows zero physics.

>> No.1197371

The force doesn't have to be stopped when it meets an immovable object.

Of course all objects are movable and no force is infinite.

>> No.1197393

a and !a=anything. This is like that, if you assume two completely opposite things are true, you can derive anything. This simply won't work.

>> No.1197418
File: 22 KB, 488x650, quantum-tunnelling-paul-egan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1197418

What force? gravity? Gravity is unstoppable, it meets it. Nothing special happens.

If you mean an unstoppable object, then it must have near infinite energy for nothing in the universe to be able to stop it. This would mean it would have enough speed and energy to have such a wide probability wavelength, it would just tunnel through the Immovable object, never actually interacting, just appearing on the other side as if they never met.

That or they bud off from this universe and create another where the laws are based on their interaction.

>> No.1197693

Force flows around object.

>> No.1197720

unstoppable force changes direction

>> No.1197721
File: 38 KB, 480x640, stonerocketship.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1197721

>> No.1197734

>>1195864
ok ill actually answer this.
1. immovable object. it would have no kinetic energy aka some how stuck at 0K aka no vibrations
2. unstoppable force. it would collide with the wall and not move, kind of like when two magnets snap together

/thread

>> No.1197747

Unstoppable force moves through unmovable object.
Unstoppable force changes direction.
Unstoppabl force becomes unmovable, unmovable becomes unstoppable.
Derp Hurr

>> No.1197751

>>1197747
you broke the rules

>> No.1198895

an unmovable object would be impossible to exist in any medium unless it was the only thing that exists. i.e if anything is moving in relation to an unmovable object than the unmovable object would be moving in relation to it... i.e it logicly does not exist in the same medium as an unstoppable force

>> No.1198906

the only possible thing that can happen... NOTHING
the object does not move
the force does not stop
they just got through each other and fucking nothing happens

>> No.1198918

why are any of you taking this seriously

the answer is simply that both unstoppable force and immovable object are not sufficiently clearly defined to provide a meaningful answer.

The question is no better than asking "what's the taylor's expansion of a banana split".

>> No.1198928

half full

>> No.1198931

They say hello to each other and begin to converse

>> No.1198935

It creates a black hole duh.

>> No.1198933

I can't believe OP is so stupid not to figure that >>1198906
out.

>> No.1198939

Batman hangs the Joker by his ankles but the camera turns upside down to make it look like they're both right side up.

>> No.1198942

If they are travelling at the same speed the object is unmovable relative to the unstopable object, but they will never meet.

>> No.1198950
File: 48 KB, 331x450, magnet2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1198950

Thats exactly how a magnet is created!!

Its an object that doesnt move, but contains as unstopable force inside.

>> No.1198975

unstopabale force stops and immovable object moves via conservation of momentum.

>> No.1199195

>>1198950

Indeed correct, now if you have 2 immovable objects how to you get one to move (change potential energy to kinetic) you cant.....so this will never happen right?

>> No.1199205

>>1195959

>fag thinks black holes have infinite mass

>> No.1199215

>>1199205

prove why a body with infinite density doesn't also have infinite mass

>> No.1199237

>>1199215

density = mass / volume
volume of a black hole is infinitely small (Singularity)
density = mass / lim->0
density = approaches infinity
mass can be any

That's why black holes with any mass can exist (well, down to Planck's mass)

a mathfag would be better suited to explain it fully, I half-arsed lim in school

>> No.1199257

>>1199215
Schwartzchild radius is a function of mass. If mass were infinite, size would be infinite. Black holes of finite size could not exist.