Forums → The Tavern → [old] Immovable object vs. Unstoppable force
| 110 | 25386 |
What happens when an unstoppable force hits an immovable object?
I've tossed this around at school, and I've gotten some interesting answers. I'll post them after this picks up a bit and i see some of your ideas.
- 110 Replies
ok, ok look what would happen:
-if the immovable object is in contact with something movable, the immovable object will move that thing instead
-if the immovable object is in contact with nothing, there will be a shockwave destroying all universe
-if the immovable object has a hole, the unstoppable force would go through it
-if the immovable object is in contact with something immovable, the force will be transferred in a continuum flux between the two objects, thus nothing would happen
Nothing will happen at all mate, it's just the natural course of things in life. But the immovable object will move, no matter what.
"Strength lies not in defense but in attack."
- Adolf Hitler
This quote says it all
Absolutly nothing happens. The force would go right around the object without moving it at all. The force would just continue to go around it.
Hitlers attack can't have been that good then eh Fritz_Rublehem ("oh no he didn't " "I think he just did" lol
From reading this thread I still can't see an answer. As sense has said it is in a parallel universe so I suppose anything could happen. The force could touch a duck. In a real situation neither can exist when the other occurs. Since they proove each other wrong.
A man was selling a shield and a spear. He saw a man who was interested in the spear and started on his sales speech, saying that the spear could got through ant shield. When the man showed interest in the shield the salesman said the shiels could defend against any spear. The man asked how it could be possible for both these to exist and the salesman could not answer. Moral: Don't contradict yourself.
immovable - to be in a sustained position forever or until destroyed
unstoppable - something that is physically impossible to stop
if the unstoppable force breaks the said "immovable object" then the force wins however the object still has not moved
HOWEVER
if the object does not break then the unstoppable force either:
A. continues to act upon the object yielding no result
B. or passes by the object all together
either way it seems that the unstoppable force wins since forces innately cannot be stopped. (Like Gravity)
2. The unstoppable force is diverted around the immovable object
this is the only reasonable one of your statements (or at least thats what i believe)
1. nothing can destroy the universe
3. everything exists or what are we?
4. energy always reacts with one another unless acted upon by an outside force.
however , though you may say forces cannot be stopped, equally, if the mass was immovable then, as mass may not be destroyed, the force could not 'win' could it? the only outcome i could possibly see is that the mass is converted into energy, producing an epic amount of the stuff and making a very interesting light show :P
(the assumption is that every single part (yes every atom) of the object is immovable, and therefore the object cannot be broken apart (which might be seen as destroying it). the mass of which the object is composed cannot be destroyed itself)
the only outcome i could possibly see is that the mass is converted into energy
Not so. Mass is only converted when it is destroyed which releases the energy within the atoms so unless destroyed it cannot be converted. and it said immovable not indestructible. mass can be destroyed however destroyed might not be the right word. its more like broken up into many objects with less mass per object but the same mass as a whole.
neither mass nor energy can be created nor destroyed, a conversion can take place, but it is not fundamentally removed from existance. And as i said in the brackets, my idea was assuming that every part of the object was fixed in its place immovably, not just the base of the object being stuck to the ground or whatever, it would be a truly immovable object! and i also said it could not be broken apart, because all that would be doing is moving bits of the object!
energy destroyed (example) stopping a falling bike that took energy from my body and it is no more
mass destroyed (example) an object broke into smaller ones. it will never have the same mass again
a conversion can take place you are right but you would need a controlled environment.
Actually, it would all depend on what the force and the object were. if the force was gravity and the object was, say, a black hole...nothing would really happen.
first example, energy not destroyed, rather kinetic energy converted partly into sound energy (which you know there will be in a collision), and a little heat from the friction (yes an infintissemally small amount!) most of the enrgy however would be transferred into the ground, making it shake a bit!
Second example, as you said before, the smaller units combined would have the same total mass, therefore none has been removed, it can have exactly the same mass again if all the pieces were reassembled, because none has disappeared, it cant just be destroyed!
im not trying to criticise you, its goof you're thinking this through rather than just shouting at me that im wrong lol, but look up conxervation of energy on wikipedia, heres a quick quote (by the way how do i quote something, like put that line before it?)
"In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant. A consequence of this law is that energy cannot be created or destroyed. The only thing that can happen with energy in an isolated system is that it can change form, that is to say for instance kinetic energy can become thermal energy. Because energy is associated with mass in the Einstein's theory of relativity, the conservation of energy also implies the conservation of mass in isolated systems (that is, the mass of a system cannot change, so long as energy is not permitted to enter or leave the system)." i.e. the amoutn of mass and energy is always the same as it always was, but there can be convertions between the two, and of form within each...in a nutshell :P
im so sorry about the speling there! laptop keybords tsk!
im not trying to criticise you, its GOOD you're thinking this through rather than just shouting at me that im wrong lol, but look up CONSERVATION of energy....
etc, sorry!
Thread is locked!