Well, I was searching to see if this was already made, but the searches didn't show a thread with my idea so here it is. I am making this thread so we can have a typical tavern discussion thread for all things science! Basically, a thread for everything science! Ranging from discussions about laws and theories, scientific debate, breakthroughs, discussion about new scientific breakthroughs, certain scientists/philosophers, and all that good stuff! So go out there and let out your inner science! ;P To get us going somewhere I'll start: what do you think the future holds for technology? I think our knowledge will allow us to overcome the obstacles thrown at us in the future, I mean, we have discovered so much and have come so far!
I think he means something along the lines of an unstoppable object meeting an immovable object.
Let's imagine there are two objects, each with an infinite amount of inertia. One of these is stationary and the other is moving. they collide. Since it would be impossible to accelerate an object with an infinite inertia, the stationary object would remain stationary and the moving object must maintain it's velocity.
My suggested solution for this paradox is that the moving object would bend the fabric of space and create a pocket space in which it is still moving with the same velocity without actually passing through the stationary object. Any thoughts on this?
Let's imagine there are two objects, each with an infinite amount of inertia. One of these is stationary and the other is moving. they collide. Since it would be impossible to accelerate an object with an infinite inertia, the stationary object would remain stationary and the moving object must maintain it's velocity.
That doesn't sound physically possible. Even if it was how would you get this infinite inertia in the fist place?
Well you would have already bent space-time by placing an object of infinite mass in a finite space. You end up with something on the order of black holes colliding. Also, I am pretty sure the standard conception of inertia breaks down at large scale of at speeds approaching that of light. Seeing as my grasp of relativity is limited at best I'm not sure how this affects the mechanics of inertia.
Let's imagine there are two objects, each with an infinite amount of inertia. One of these is stationary and the other is moving. they collide. Since it would be impossible to accelerate an object with an infinite inertia, the stationary object would remain stationary and the moving object must maintain it's velocity.
So, two objects, both with infinite inertia, one stationary, the other flies directly towards the other? Applying standart rules of physics on our scale, the moving object would simply transfer it's impulse to the stationary object, staying stationary itself after the collision. I don't think the amount of inertia plays a role when both have the same (infinite). I just don't know if there's any factor that would have an influence on such big scales...
Just a thought about the irresistible force and the immovable object. An irresistible force should be a force of infinite power, right? And an immovable object something that can apply a force with infinite power in the opposite direction. So infinite power, against infinite power. But if a force of 5 N meets an object that can stand 5 N, the forces balance each other and nothing happens. So if it applies when it's 5 vs 5, why shouldn't it apply to infinite vs infinite?
Just a thought about the irresistible force and the immovable object. An irresistible force should be a force of infinite power, right? And an immovable object something that can apply a force with infinite power in the opposite direction. So infinite power, against infinite power. But if a force of 5 N meets an object that can stand 5 N, the forces balance each other and nothing happens. So if it applies when it's 5 vs 5, why shouldn't it apply to infinite vs infinite?
It's because an infinite vs an infinite would go on forever. Nothing would actually happen. Because if it's infinite, it goes on forever. With an unmovable object though, then it will be like 2 pushes that balance out, like you said.
Just a thought about the irresistible force and the immovable object. An irresistible force should be a force of infinite power, right? And an immovable object something that can apply a force with infinite power in the opposite direction. So infinite power, against infinite power. But if a force of 5 N meets an object that can stand 5 N, the forces balance each other and nothing happens. So if it applies when it's 5 vs 5, why shouldn't it apply to infinite vs infinite?
This only works if the immovable object is the same as the other, and flies exactly straight towards the other one with the same velocity. Then both collide and stand still (or break if their structure can't support the force of the collision). An object that doesn't move doesn't show up any force in any direction, except at the very moment of the collision when it offers resistance in scale of it's inertia. But moving objects transfer their impulse on collisions, if the impulse of both are the same they stand still.
Oh I read a few oh his books. I think they're pretty accurate. And another question, could we increase the energy by slowing down the the atoms when they collide.
