What Happens When an Unstoppable Force Meets an Immovable Object?
Discuss the merits and deficiencies of political theories and philosophical questions.
| Announcements | Posted on | |
|---|---|---|
| TSR launches Learn Together! - Our new subscription to help improve your learning | 16-05-2013 | |
-
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Posts: 3,187
Re: What Happens When an Unstoppable Force Meets an Immovable Object?So they are not unstoppable and immovable then? So they aren't the forces the question is referring to, and you haven't sufficiently answer the question... I wonder what your dad was going his PhD in...(Original post by wactm)
Is it wierd that this question holds a lot of significance for me? My dad asked me this when he was doing his PhD, I was 10. I spent 2 hours trying to come up with an answer.
He said.
The Unstoppable Force Stops. The Immovable object Moves.
You started so well. You should have ended at "surely that makes no sense". After deciding the question makes no sense you start using logic to go on about "idle forces"....(Original post by King-Panther)
Yes, that makes sense. As the unstoppable force meets its nemeses, an immovable object.. or does it, as its an unstoppable FORCE and an immoveable OBJECT, surely that makes no sense. A force is a force and an objet is an object... So the unstoppable force stops to become what?????? An idil force, but surely it can not be a "force" if is "idil" (it could be an unstoppable object) and what becomes of the object now that it is moving, does itself become unstoppable... And surely that is contradictory, the immoveable moves and the unstoppable stops.. But it is still the most logic answer is this illogical scenario. I still feel that an explosion is a answer, in other words, they cancel each other out.
A force cannot really be defined as "unstoppable". An object certainly can't be defined as "immovable". Its an inherent property of matter etc etc. F=ma, a physical rule the universe follows. So that ends the question. Its not valid.
If I ask you, "I have an object that is completely blue and completely red. What colour is it?" There is no answer, the question is just stupid.
I suspect the question is one of those philosophical types that was thought up hundreds of years ago before people understood forces and objects, it doesn't actually refer to the physics meaning of the terms "force", more the general kind. People use it to apply to people etc.
That or it is used to show you that some questions are stupid. -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Posts: 3,187
Re: What Happens When an Unstoppable Force Meets an Immovable Object?Haha, yes. People often don't know E=mc squared is a version with momentum removed.(Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
Physics doesn't work like that. Just because something has no mass does not mean it has no energy. Take a photon, for example. Life is pretty ****ed if a photon doesn't carry any energy. E = mc^2 is only intended to describe the energy of objects with mass, it does not apply when m = 0.
Forces are indirect quantities. It's not massive, nor does it exist in any sort of wave state - it is simply a thing which causes an object to change in some way. The causes of a force are the complicated bit! So no, forces don't have mass!
The full version:
Contains a reference to momentum.
An "immovable object", which cannot exist, would have a momentum of zero though! And thus this part of the equation would fall out - but a mass 0 momentum 0 object simply would cease to exist. -
- Reputation:
- Section Moderator
- Green Mod
- Location: Weston-super-Mare
- Posts: 5,310
Re: What Happens When an Unstoppable Force Meets an Immovable Object?It's a hypothetical scenario without an answer. There can't exist two entities which logically conflict with one another - an unstoppable force can't be stopped, yet an immovable object is capable of stopping any force - these two concepts can't both exist and yet remain logically congruent. The paradox comes about because the situation where an unstoppable force meets an immovable object is undefined as it represents a contradiction in terms.
-
- Reputation:
- Exalted and Worshipped Member
- Posts: 927
Re: What Happens When an Unstoppable Force Meets an Immovable Object?An immovable object would be an object that is immovable relative to another surface, it is better to think of it this way. Then, there is energy stored within the system (an infinite amount) as there are some attractive forces, be they electrostatic, gravitational or nuclear.(Original post by Hanvyj)
...
If the surface on which the object is placed is not immovable however, then the unstoppable force will cause the surface to move. Thus, the immovable object is not being moved, relative to its surface, and the unstoppable force is not being stoped - this is basically what Stratos said on the first page.
If however, the surface on which the immovable object is placed or some way attracted to, is immovable relative to its surface and each subsequent surface is immovable to its surface ad infinitum - then you have a problem
-
- Reputation:
- Exalted Member
- Location: Manchester
- Posts: 292
Re: What Happens When an Unstoppable Force Meets an Immovable Object?The force moves through the object. Simple as.(Original post by DylanLJG)
So what do people think happens when an Unstoppable Force meets an Immovable Object? Interesting Paradox, anyone got any ideas? -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Posts: 3,187
Re: What Happens When an Unstoppable Force Meets an Immovable Object?
The question mentions nothing about surfaces. We have to assume a certain reference plane however, it is natural and logical to assume "stationary" is the frame of reference where the object is not moving with any velocity. Saying "Stationary" is a frame of reference defined by the position of another object or surface not even mentioned in the question is silly, and I don't see how its better to think of it that way.(Original post by yomomalomo)
An immovable object would be an object that is immovable relative to another surface, it is better to think of it this way. Then, there is energy stored within the system (an infinite amount) as there are some attractive forces, be they electrostatic, gravitational or nuclear.
If the surface on which the object is placed is not immovable however, then the unstoppable force will cause the surface to move. Thus, the immovable object is not being moved, relative to its surface, and the unstoppable force is not being stoped - this is basically what Stratos said on the first page.
If however, the surface on which the immovable object is placed or some way attracted to, is immovable relative to its surface and each subsequent surface is immovable to its surface ad infinitum - then you have a problem
Given the most natural and logical of reference frames being the "immovable" object's position as "stationary" then your answer doesn't make sense.
Look, here is a nice paint diagram showing the fallacy of that answer:
Last edited by Hanvyj; 30-07-2012 at 18:47. -
- Reputation:
- Exalted and Worshipped Member
- Posts: 927
Re: What Happens When an Unstoppable Force Meets an Immovable Object?If we are to try and reify this hypothetical question to some degree, so as to delve into it further, then we must know that an object is not immovable by sheer fact that it is immovable - this is nonsensical and not real. It is immovable because it is attracted to (or repelled from) some other matter, with the attraction or repulsion being infinitely strong.(Original post by Hanvyj)
...
Your picture is incorrect because in both versions, the immovable object is moving relative to a surface (we'll call it a surface for the sake of simplicity, it could be any type of matter of any size and density that has mass or electric charge or is made up of quarks, in fact space itself could count as a surface). The start position is actually the surface. So what I was saying is that if the surface is not itself held in place (by either the rest of itself or other external surfaces) by an infinitely strong force, then the surface will move i.e. the start position itself moves. The immovable object is still not moved, because it is impossible to move it from the surface it is attracted to (i.e it has not moved relative to that starting point) or move it to the surface it is repelled from, while the unstoppable force is not stopped or reduced because it continue to do work at the same rate (infinity).
The problem does however arise if we have an immovable object which is attracted to a surface which is itself immovable - this is probably what I would call a true immovable object.
Doing the maths, we either have the immovable object still immovable but the unstoppable force stopped - resultant force = 0
or
we have the unstoppable force stopped and the immovable object moving in a positive direction with infinite velocity - resultant force = infinity
or
we have the unstoppable force continue forward, not stopped (some how through the immovable oject
) while the immovable object moves in the negative direction with infinite velocity (it has infinite negative momentum) - resultant force = negative infinity.
So that is not really a satisfying answer either.
But then the above is not true either. Because if the force is going to continue being unstoppable i.e continue to be applied, then how can it be applied to a system in which each particle is immovable relative to the other? It just becomes more and more crazy - is there then no energy in the system because the forces of the surrounding particles cancel each other out? Can either of the things actually exist at all, whether alone or together? I don't know but what I will do is say "fudge this question I'm going to sleep"!
PS. I'm sorry if most of it makes no sense at all - I'm tired and part crazy
Last edited by yomomalomo; 31-07-2012 at 03:17. -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Posts: 3,187
Re: What Happens When an Unstoppable Force Meets an Immovable Object?An imovable object is imovable by its very definition - its in the name. Of course its nonsensical and not real, that was my point - the question is wrong.(Original post by yomomalomo)
If we are to try and reify this hypothetical question to some degree, so as to delve into it further, then we must know that an object is not immovable by sheer fact that it is immovable - this is nonsensical and not real. It is immovable because it is attracted to (or repelled from) some other matter, with the attraction or repulsion being infinitely strong.
However, you then start introducing this random other object that is is "attracted to" with an (equaly imposible) attractive force for no reason whatsoever other than the fact that "It is immovable because it is attracted to (or repelled from) some other matter". Which I can't see any basis for - the object in the situation is described as immovable. As far as I can see, we can only assume two things from this:
1) The object is not moving. This means we have a "stationary" reference frame, the initial frame of reference of te object at which it is at rest (velocity of 0).
2) The object cannot accelerate.
Where do you get the "must be infinatley attracted to some other random matter" from? What is the basis of this?
The diagram is correct. The observational frame of reference (the "drawing") is one which does not accelerate, a natural position for measuring the immovability of objects...(Original post by yomomalomo)
Your picture is incorrect because in both versions, the immovable object is moving relative to a surface (we'll call it a surface for the sake of simplicity, it could be any type of matter of any size and density that has mass or electric charge or is made up of quarks, in fact space itself could count as a surface). The start position is actually the surface. So what I was saying is that if the surface is not itself held in place (by either the rest of itself or other external surfaces) by an infinitely strong force, then the surface will move i.e. the start position itself moves. The immovable object is still not moved, because it is impossible to move it from the surface it is attracted to (i.e it has not moved relative to that starting point) or move it to the surface it is repelled from, while the unstoppable force is not stopped or reduced because it continue to do work at the same rate (infinity).
My point was that in both cases the object is moving. Your "surface" which moves in the diagram is the cat. Stop calling frames of references surfaces! But the even though your random reference frame attatched to the object moves it still measures an acceleration, because you can't just move the "true" reference frame, we assume that has a velocity of 0 and continues that way - thus has no acceleration (which the object is experiencing) so they can't just magically stick together.
F=mA, the object has a mass and a force is exerted on it - it must undergo an acceleration or its components (deform/break) or break the laws of physics.
So we either break the laws of physics or the rules of the question.
This made me laugh. So you can't have an immovable object (it has to be repelled infinatley from another object duh) but what if that other object is truly immovable! O_O(Original post by yomomalomo)
The problem does however arise if we have an immovable object which is attracted to a surface which is itself immovable - this is probably what I would call a true immovable object.
Didn't you just rule out something being "truly" immovable by the premis of this other object lol? You turned your own reasoning into circular logic, or just destroyed the need for it at all...
The object must have moved when any force is applied. F=ma. Lets do the math... any force and any mass results in finite acceleration.(Original post by yomomalomo)
Doing the maths, we either have the immovable object still immovable but the unstoppable force stopped - resultant force = 0
infinate velocity???? really?? Isn't that, well, kind of moving?(Original post by yomomalomo)
we have the unstoppable force stopped and the immovable object moving in a positive direction with infinite velocity - resultant force = infinity
I'm glad you came to that last conclusion - the question is flawed, hense there is no satisfactory answer.(Original post by yomomalomo)
we have the unstoppable force continue forward, not stopped (some how through the immovable oject ) while the immovable object moves in the negative direction with infinite velocity (it has infinite negative momentum) - resultant force = negative infinity.
So that is not really a satisfying answer either.
Well, we generally came up with the same conclusion - the question is utterly flawed.(Original post by yomomalomo)
But then the above is not true either. Because if the force is going to continue being unstoppable i.e continue to be applied, then how can it be applied to a system in which each particle is immovable relative to the other? It just becomes more and more crazy - is there then no energy in the system because the forces of the surrounding particles cancel each other out? Can either of the things actually exist at all, whether alone or together? I don't know but what I will do is say "fudge this question I'm going to sleep"!
PS. I'm sorry if most of it makes no sense at all - I'm tired and part crazy
To put it simply, an "object" cannot be immovable when a force is applied unless it doesn't conform to newtons second law - ie isn't matter - ie isn't really what I would consider an "object"...Last edited by Hanvyj; 31-07-2012 at 17:09.
) while the immovable object moves in the negative direction with infinite velocity (it has infinite negative momentum) - resultant force = negative infinity.
