Jews
This is an exercise in logic. If an unstoppable force exists, then an immovable object cannot exist, because it would be able to be moved by the unstoppable force, and vice versa. Sideways Logic The unstoppable force does not "stop", the immovable object does not move : the unstoppable force ricochets off the immovable object!
This scenario poses a paradox because it assumes the existence of two contradictory concepts - an immovable object and an unstoppable force. In reality, both cannot coexist, so the outcome is undefined or illogical. Physics does not provide a definitive answer to this hypothetical situation.
Let's see: An immovable object has infinite inertia, so it has an infinite mass. An unstoppable force is probably infinite as well. Were we in the finite domain, we could useNewton's second law that says: F=ma, or a = F/m.Therefore the body would be accelerated by the quotient of the force and mass.Here we go into the speculative domain - if the infinities are equivalent,I will divide them and get a constant, therefore there is a constant acceleration and the unstoppable force wins (the object moves).The part where I cheated was when dividing infinities, which is not a well-defined mathematical operation.I believe we could say this: an unstoppable force would win over an equally immovable object.
There would be an endless transfer of energyIsaac Asimov answered this question rather neatly, I thought. I can't remember in which of his many books I read it (it was a long time ago), but the gist of his argument was this: A universe in which there exists such a thing as an irresistible force is, by definition, a universe which cannot also contain an immovable object. And a universe which contains an immovable object cannot, by definition, also contain an irresistible force. So the question is essentially meaningless: either the force is irresistible or the object is immovable, but not both.This was my first introduction to philosophy. It was also my first introduction to the notion that ideas which are actually incoherent, when analysed, can nevertheless be extremely useful metaphors. I can think of no better way to describe some encounters between two-year-olds and their mothers, for example.----The correct setup would be "What would happen if an immovable object were confronted with an unstoppable force." We will have to further define out unstoppable force as having infinite momentum (right?) and the immovable object having infinite inertia (right.) Therefore, our unstoppable force would have an infinite energy (measure this in joules/calories/whatever) and the unstoppable force would be able to absorb infinite energy.There would be an endless transfer of energy.The two would appear as if they are resting, but are actually transferring their infinite energies from one to the other. Equilibrium or a relation would never be established since we're dealing in the infinite regarding energy.
It's a paradox known as the "unstoppable force paradox" and it challenges the idea that both an unstoppable force and an immovable object can exist simultaneously. It's a thought experiment that raises questions about the fundamental laws of physics and what would happen in such a scenario.
If the unstoppable object was smaller, then it would pierce a hole through the immovable object, not moving the object, and not stopping.
This is an exercise in logic. If an unstoppable force exists, then an immovable object cannot exist, because it would be able to be moved by the unstoppable force, and vice versa. Sideways Logic The unstoppable force does not "stop", the immovable object does not move : the unstoppable force ricochets off the immovable object!
Broken Toy - 2009 Unstoppable Force Immovable Object 2-8 was released on: USA: 6 February 2013
This scenario poses a paradox because it assumes the existence of two contradictory concepts - an immovable object and an unstoppable force. In reality, both cannot coexist, so the outcome is undefined or illogical. Physics does not provide a definitive answer to this hypothetical situation.
This scenario sets up a paradox because an unstoppable force cannot be slowed or stopped by any means, while an immovable object cannot be moved or affected by any force. If they were to meet, it would result in a logical contradiction. It is considered a thought experiment with no real-world solution.
Let's see: An immovable object has infinite inertia, so it has an infinite mass. An unstoppable force is probably infinite as well. Were we in the finite domain, we could useNewton's second law that says: F=ma, or a = F/m.Therefore the body would be accelerated by the quotient of the force and mass.Here we go into the speculative domain - if the infinities are equivalent,I will divide them and get a constant, therefore there is a constant acceleration and the unstoppable force wins (the object moves).The part where I cheated was when dividing infinities, which is not a well-defined mathematical operation.I believe we could say this: an unstoppable force would win over an equally immovable object.
there is no difference lol thats just like asking what happens when an unstoppable force hits an immovable object - IT TURNS AROUND just because its unstoppable doesnt mean its immovable THE MORE YOU KNOW /god
Basic paradoxes are examples of questions that cannot be answered. For example, what happens when an immovable object meets an unstoppable force? Since neither an immovable object nor an unstoppable force exist in reality, there is no way to determine what would happen in this theoretical situation. Source: personal experience
There would be an endless transfer of energyIsaac Asimov answered this question rather neatly, I thought. I can't remember in which of his many books I read it (it was a long time ago), but the gist of his argument was this: A universe in which there exists such a thing as an irresistible force is, by definition, a universe which cannot also contain an immovable object. And a universe which contains an immovable object cannot, by definition, also contain an irresistible force. So the question is essentially meaningless: either the force is irresistible or the object is immovable, but not both.This was my first introduction to philosophy. It was also my first introduction to the notion that ideas which are actually incoherent, when analysed, can nevertheless be extremely useful metaphors. I can think of no better way to describe some encounters between two-year-olds and their mothers, for example.----The correct setup would be "What would happen if an immovable object were confronted with an unstoppable force." We will have to further define out unstoppable force as having infinite momentum (right?) and the immovable object having infinite inertia (right.) Therefore, our unstoppable force would have an infinite energy (measure this in joules/calories/whatever) and the unstoppable force would be able to absorb infinite energy.There would be an endless transfer of energy.The two would appear as if they are resting, but are actually transferring their infinite energies from one to the other. Equilibrium or a relation would never be established since we're dealing in the infinite regarding energy.
It's a paradox known as the "unstoppable force paradox" and it challenges the idea that both an unstoppable force and an immovable object can exist simultaneously. It's a thought experiment that raises questions about the fundamental laws of physics and what would happen in such a scenario.
You can't. Hence the name 'unstoppable'. An unstoppable force, upon hitting something, would push the other object aside and continue onwards. The only problem is if you have both an unstoppable force and an immovable object. The force can't push the object aside, and the object can't stop the force. The solution is fairly simple, however - the unstoppable force is deflected off to the side when the two collide. It isn't stopped, but continues in a different direction. The immovable object doesn't move. Easy. Alternately, the following happens: the unstoppable force continues straight onwards, and the object doesn't move. Since the two can't change in their actions, space itself is twisted to allow the force to pass through the object without moving it in any way. Having an unstoppable force and an immovable object is both theoretically and practically impossible anyway, so this entire line of questioning is fairly pointless.
AnswerThere is no such thing as an unstoppable force, or an immovable object. Things like nuclear explosions or planets come close, but not close enough.AnswerThis is known as the 'Irresistible Force Paradox'.An irresistible force would have to possess (effectively) infinite energy, which is impossible for a finite universe. Also, for a universe in which irresistible forces are possible, immovable objects would not be (therein lies the crux of the paradox). For the sake of the question, we would also have to assume that both are indestructible, subverting the obvious answer that both would be destroyed.This is related to the 'Omniscience Paradox' - the question "can God create a stone that is too heavy for even Him to lift?"If an irresistible force meets an immovable object, the immovable object moves and the irresistible force stops. This is one rational answer for an irrational question.