So, theoretically.... what would happens if...

[wahoyaho]

Unstoppable force = immovable object. They are the same thing.

 

[Colt45]

one of the two moves or stops or blows up. so they dont exist.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
So we just changed a fundamental law in physics?

According to some of the arguments, one force can exist without its opposite?

Damn, we're geniuses.

I am too busy trying to figure out how an object can be immovable given that even newtonian physics realizes that there are no special frames of reference.

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: SSSnail
So we just changed a fundamental law in physics?

According to some of the arguments, one force can exist without its opposite?

Damn, we're geniuses.

I am too busy trying to figure out how an object can be immovable given that even newtonian physics realizes that there are no special frames of reference.

I don't know, something about every thing must have an equal and opposite force, hypothetically referencing the laws, of course.

 

[DrPizza]

wtf is an "unstoppable" force?
and
wtf is an "immoveable" object? Forces aren't stopped. That doesn't even make sense.

Forces are measured in Newtons. So, what's it mean to say "stop a 1 Newton force"? It means absolutely nothing.

edit: OP, are you proud of yourself? You mentioned "Newton's Laws" without, apparently, having a clue? One of the more obscure of Newton's Laws of motion is that one about how a net force results in an acceleration. You probably never heard of that one, since you're mentioning an immovable object.

 

[SSSnail]

Oh come on professor, you know what "theoretically" and "hypothetically" means. Also, look up the third law of Newton's since it has just a smidgen to do with what we're talking about here; you know, the nonsensical "immovable" and "unstoppable" things?

Edit: you must be a riot at the drinking table, there's also this obscure law of humanity calls "humor" that many have heard of but few have mastered.

 

[Anubis]

this has allready been answered

when The unstoppable Force come up against The Immovable Object

Chuck Norris Dies

 

[Paperdoc]

This is an old trick in logic. The answer is, the question is wrong! It is a non sequitur - from Latin, literally "does not follow". That is, from the perpective of logic, the question contains two proposed premises, each of which does not follow from the other.

The two premises are:
1. There is such a thing as an Unstoppable Force.
2. There is such a thing as an Immovable Object.

Now, define those two terms. Even assuming that we acccept what we all might understand from the terms:
1. An Unstoppable Force is a force so great that absolutely nothobng can stop it, and it will be able to move any object. Now, we all recognize that in our own experience of reality no such force ever has been found, but for the current discussion we will agree to hypothesize that such a Force does exist.
2. An Immovable Object is an object that somehow cannot be moved, not matter how much force is applied. Now, we all recognize that in our own experience of reality no such object ever has been found, but for the current discussion we will agree to hypothesize that such an Object does exist.

You see, we have temporarily agreed to hypothesize two things that don't exist, and further that cannot exist simultaneously. It is WE who have created the conundrum by making an agreement for the impossible. The question is not real, so we cannot expect to find an answer in the real world. That means we could imagine absolutely any answer possible, and nobody could decide whether the answer is correct or not, because it also is not real.

 

[darkxshade]

Originally posted by: Paperdoc
This is an old trick in logic. The answer is, the question is wrong! It is a non sequitur - from Latin, literally "does not follow". That is, from the perpective of logic, the question contains two proposed premises, each of which does not follow from the other.

The two premises are:
1. There is such a thing as an Unstoppable Force.
2. There is such a thing as an Immovable Object.

Now, define those two terms. Even assuming that we acccept what we all might understand from the terms:
1. An Unstoppable Force is a force so great that absolutely nothobng can stop it, and it will be able to move any object. Now, we all recognize that in our own experience of reality no such force ever has been found, but for the current discussion we will agree to hypothesize that such a Force does exist.
2. An Immovable Object is an object that somehow cannot be moved, not matter how much force is applied. Now, we all recognize that in our own experience of reality no such object ever has been found, but for the current discussion we will agree to hypothesize that such an Object does exist.

You see, we have temporarily agreed to hypothesize two things that don't exist, and further that cannot exist simultaneously. It is WE who have created the conundrum by making an agreement for the impossible. The question is not real, so we cannot expect to find an answer in the real world. That means we could imagine absolutely any answer possible, and nobody could decide whether the answer is correct or not, because it also is not real.

I like you.

 

[markgm]

Originally posted by: Capone
Wouldn't the unstoppable force just change directions?

It would stop for an instant then.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
Oh come on professor, you know what "theoretically" and "hypothetically" means. Also, look up the third law of Newton's since it has just a smidgen to do with what we're talking about here; you know, the nonsensical "immovable" and "unstoppable" things?

Edit: you must be a riot at the drinking table, there's also this obscure law of humanity calls "humor" that many have heard of but few have mastered.

If you were referring to me, I'd point out that there's a difference between theoretical, hypothetical, and just plain nonsense. So, you claim there's an "unstoppable" force. Please explain for a moment wtf a "stoppable" force is. I certainly enjoy discussing hypothetical situations; I loved the plane on a treadmill discussion (well, except for the part about the discussion attracting morons & idiots who posted pure crap.) But, there is no discussion here because your "hypothetical" problem doesn't make sense. You can't "stop" a force - it makes less sense than division by zero. (Okay, we have 10 pegs & we're going to split them up evenly into zero piles. How many are in each pile?)

Again, "An Unstoppable Force is a force so great that absolutely nothing can stop it," makes absolutely no sense. "A force that is small enough that it can be stopped" makes absolutely no sense either. You may as well say "the sound coming from the speakers was purple and wet."

 

[Demon-Xanth]

force=mass*acceleration.

If an object is immovable, meaning it has infinite mass. Regardless of how much force is applied it will result in approaching 0 acceleration. But not zero.

However, if the object is immovable since it creates an equal opposite force in the opposite direction then you end up with two opposing irresistible forces. Thus equaling zero.

 

[jjones]

So, theoretically.... what would happens if... An unstoppable force come up against an immovable object?

Bad Uwe Boll movies get made.

 

[DrPizza]

Perhaps I should explain further, so you'll have a clue:

Suppose a small car rear-ends a semi. Which exerts the greater force? The small car on the semi? Or the semi on the small car?

Suppose a small car is stalled on the highway and a semi pushes it down the road at a constant speed to the next exit. Which exerts the greater force? The small car on the semi? Or the semi on the small car?

Suppose a small car is stalled on the highway and a semi accelerates it from 0 to 60 by pushing on it. Which exerts the greater force? The small car on the semi? Or the semi on the small car?

Suppose a semi is sitting on the highway with its parking brakes on. A small car attempts to push it down the road (and fails). Which exerts the greater force? The small car on the semi? Or the semi on the small car?

Suppose a semi is sitting on the highway in neutral. The small car succeeds in pushing the semi down the road. Which exerts the greater force? The small car on the semi? Or the semi on the small car?

Suppose a semi traveling 100mph, downhill collides head-on with a small car that's traveling up the hill at 40mph. Which exerts the greater force? The small car on the semi? Or the semi on the small car?

Suppose a small car traveling 150mph downhill hits the side of a semi as it goes through an intersection at the bottom of the hill. Which exerts the greater force? The small car on the semi? Or the semi on the small car?


The answer to every one of these questions is "they exert the *exact* same amount of force on each other. Forces always exist in pairs. You obviously have NO clue wtf Newton's laws of motion mean. In none of these cases does "the force is stopped" make any sense whatsoever. The force only exists because it acts between two objects.

The only context "unstoppable force" has any meaning is like this: "The United States Air Force is so formidable that no enemy can stop them."

 

[Schfifty Five]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Perhaps I should explain further, so you'll have a clue:

Suppose a small car rear-ends a semi. Which exerts the greater force? The small car on the semi? Or the semi on the small car?

Suppose a small car is stalled on the highway and a semi pushes it down the road at a constant speed to the next exit. Which exerts the greater force? The small car on the semi? Or the semi on the small car?

Suppose a small car is stalled on the highway and a semi accelerates it from 0 to 60 by pushing on it. Which exerts the greater force? The small car on the semi? Or the semi on the small car?

Suppose a semi is sitting on the highway with its parking brakes on. A small car attempts to push it down the road (and fails). Which exerts the greater force? The small car on the semi? Or the semi on the small car?

Suppose a semi is sitting on the highway in neutral. The small car succeeds in pushing the semi down the road. Which exerts the greater force? The small car on the semi? Or the semi on the small car?

Suppose a semi traveling 100mph, downhill collides head-on with a small car that's traveling up the hill at 40mph. Which exerts the greater force? The small car on the semi? Or the semi on the small car?

Suppose a small car traveling 150mph downhill hits the side of a semi as it goes through an intersection at the bottom of the hill. Which exerts the greater force? The small car on the semi? Or the semi on the small car?


The answer to every one of these questions is "they exert the *exact* same amount of force on each other. Forces always exist in pairs. You obviously have NO clue wtf Newton's laws of motion mean. In none of these cases does "the force is stopped" make any sense whatsoever. The force only exists because it acts between two objects.

The only context "unstoppable force" has any meaning is like this: "The United States Air Force is so formidable that no enemy can stop them."

wow, calm down man. Why are you getting so worked up over this thread?

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Schfifty Five
wow, calm down man. Why are you getting so worked up over this thread?

I'm not worked up at all. I teach physics. I hate to see idiotic misconceptions spread. I'm just doing my part to slow down the spread of ignorance. Next thing you know, someone will start a thread like this: "If we sent children to the moon, say 50 pounds each, how heavy would the boots need to be that they'd have to wear to keep from floating away - hypothetically, of course."

 

[IceBergSLiM]

which one is on teh treadmill?

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Schfifty Five
wow, calm down man. Why are you getting so worked up over this thread?

I'm not worked up at all. I teach physics. I hate to see idiotic misconceptions spread. I'm just doing my part to slow down the spread of ignorance. Next thing you know, someone will start a thread like this: "If we sent children to the moon, say 50 pounds each, how heavy would the boots need to be that they'd have to wear to keep from floating away - hypothetically, of course."

That's a perfectly fine question...

I didn't read all your drivels, just wanted to make one more comment on this subject and hopefully you'd understand. Relax, breath, and get over yourself. It's meant to be an amusing nonsense discussion, perhaps something you can throw around at a bar, and pretend to debate seriously over a beer and laugh about it. You see, not everything has to be text book correct or make sense to discuss about. Class dismiss.

You know professor, there's this question that's been nagging me for a long time and hopefully you can help with your scientific answer: if a woodchuck could chuck wood, how many pints do you think a woodchuck can chug?

Edit: here's undeniable PROOF that these two objects exist. I present to you The Unstoppable Force
and The Immovable Object. Rhodes scholars.... pfffftt...

 

[Savarak]

i can picture the idea that something can be unstoppable, but i can't picture something that can be immovable... no matter what size mass, the universe is bigger, so there's nothing to stop it from being moved back even if by extremely extremely small amount... but for something to be unstoppable, it can slice through or pass through anything, even to the point of moving quarks aside to continue in the void of space between

 

[RESmonkey]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
wtf is an "unstoppable" force?
and
wtf is an "immoveable" object? Forces aren't stopped. That doesn't even make sense.

Forces are measured in Newtons. So, what's it mean to say "stop a 1 Newton force"? It means absolutely nothing.

edit: OP, are you proud of yourself? You mentioned "Newton's Laws" without, apparently, having a clue? One of the more obscure of Newton's Laws of motion is that one about how a net force results in an acceleration. You probably never heard of that one, since you're mentioning an immovable object.

x2

I'm happy we have you around.

 

[finite automaton]

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Schfifty Five
wow, calm down man. Why are you getting so worked up over this thread?

I'm not worked up at all. I teach physics. I hate to see idiotic misconceptions spread. I'm just doing my part to slow down the spread of ignorance. Next thing you know, someone will start a thread like this: "If we sent children to the moon, say 50 pounds each, how heavy would the boots need to be that they'd have to wear to keep from floating away - hypothetically, of course."

That's a perfectly fine question...

I didn't read all your drivels, just wanted to make one more comment on this subject and hopefully you'd understand. Relax, breath, and get over yourself. It's meant to be an amusing nonsense discussion, perhaps something you can throw around at a bar, and pretend to debate seriously over a beer and laugh about it. You see, not everything has to be text book correct or make sense to discuss about. Class dismiss.

You know professor, there's this question that's been nagging me for a long time and hopefully you can help with your scientific answer: if a woodchuck could chuck wood, how many pints do you think a woodchuck can chug?

42. Duh.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: SSSnail

You know professor, there's this question that's been nagging me for a long time and hopefully you can help with your scientific answer: if a woodchuck could chuck wood, how many pints do you think a woodchuck can chug?

None. Wood isn't measured in pints.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

The unstoppable force takes off.

 

[fishjie]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Schfifty Five
wow, calm down man. Why are you getting so worked up over this thread?

I'm not worked up at all. I teach physics. I hate to see idiotic misconceptions spread. I'm just doing my part to slow down the spread of ignorance. Next thing you know, someone will start a thread like this: "If we sent children to the moon, say 50 pounds each, how heavy would the boots need to be that they'd have to wear to keep from floating away - hypothetically, of course."

why so serious?