Forums → The Tavern → [old] Immovable object vs. Unstoppable force

Well, with the main question, nothing happens.

But for after, the energy collects and something happens.

It bounces off. Ignore the gaping holes in my logic!

If an unstoppable force was to hit an immovable object, could the unstoppable force just go through the object? For example, and it's not a good one but the best I could quickly think up, think of a bullet hitting a wall. The bullet can not move the wall, but the wall can not stop the bullet. So, if the bullet can not move the wall (our immovable object) and the wall can not stop the bullet (our unstoppable force), what would happen? The answer to this example is that the bullet would hit the wall and since the wall could not stop the bullet, the bullet would penetrate the wall and continue on it's path. That is how I look at this, but I could be wrong. Perhaps someone more knowledgable in physics would know.

I'm not even sure if this is a legitimate question, but I'd rather just play along and talk like I know what I'm talking about =)

But for after, the energy collects and something happens.

wait... all WoW references aside, this is easy as hell... the unstoppable force goes through the immovable object, the object still doesn't move, and the force isn't stopped.

maybe it will just blow up or something. but neither should of them will move at all right?

But even though that force might travel through the object, it would still tranfer some energy, and the object would move.

Thing that does not move at all: Ice (fx) at absolute zero. None of the molecules will move at all, locked up in sucha compressed state.

*Tries to answer confusing topic*

Well..

I think it is a tie.

Unstoppable force meets immovable object.

I can not answer.

SS

Hmm...

To much confusing.

well these are some... interesting answers. the ones i've heard are:

they will switch places
disruption of the time/space continuum
they will go through each other
divide by zero (lol)

and the immovable object and the unstoppable force are rendered in the same size objects. so it wouldn't be like a bullet and a wall, per se.

this is just a theoretical question, you don't necessarily have to know a real immovable object. and think outside of the box! even if something isn't proved by science today, or the principle doesn't exist yet, post it!

an example: MIT students had to come up with ideas for future space vehicles and their means of propulsion. one group theorized that a net could be made; one side of the net allowed particles and rays to freely permeate through it, while the other reflected the rays and used their force to propel it. that couldn't happen with the tech today, but this is what i mean by think outside of the box.

and what would you consider a tie between something moving with infinite force and something moving with no force at all? two objects moving with half infinite force?

I think the tie is the force being held in place, but still moving (transfering energy), and the object vibrating because of the energy (but without moving an inch from the spot it stands on). Theoretically I think that might be the closest to a real conclusion, but Information Science does not really have anything to do with physics, so idk...

Hasnt anyone tought of repelling? i.a. the unstopable force will just be repelled into another direction by the immovable object, pretty simple if you ask me...


Sep

yes, but if the force bounces off the object, the force's velocity will be zero at one point.

But there still would be a transfer of energy to the object, so even if the force repelled, the object would still move a tiny bit from the energy transfer.

But there still would be a transfer of energy to the object, so even if the force repelled, the object would still move a tiny bit from the energy transfer.