Just one sec...
 You are Here: Home

# What Happens When an Unstoppable Force Meets an Immovable Object?

Announcements Posted on
Results day: make sure you know what to expect before you get your grades. Here's how to be ready. 22-07-2016
1. The immovable object breaks.
2. (Original post by green.tea)
The immovable object breaks.
How can it break without moving?
3. One or the other must yield:

Either the unmovable object breaks..

.. Or the unstoppable force changes direction

4. roger federer wins
5. (Original post by tazarooni89)
How can it break without moving?
hmm. ok.

I guess an object could only be immovable by allowing an unstoppable force to pass through or an unstoppable force could only be unstoppable by being able to pass through the immovable.

Were this not the case the existence of both an immovable object and an unstoppable force would be impossible.
6. (Original post by green.tea)
hmm. ok.

I guess an object could only be immovable by allowing an unstoppable force to pass through or an unstoppable force could only be unstoppable by being able to pass through the immovable.

Were this not the case the existence of both an immovable object and an unstoppable force would be impossible.
Or alternatively, the unstoppable force and immovable object could both exist, but in such a way that it is impossible that they would ever meet one another.
7. (Original post by tazarooni89)
Or alternatively, the unstoppable force and immovable object could both exist, but in such a way that it is impossible that they would ever meet one another.
But then something would be stopping the force meeting the object.
8. (Original post by Thebestgod)
That would depend on the exact magnitude of both the forces. How do you define unstoppable and Immovable?

Does immovable imply unbreakable? If so, then the force would penetrate the object and pass right through it?

If not, then I don't think they'll cancel each other out because they're not opposite to each other.

Also the object will have a mass. Do forces HAVE a mass themselves? I don't think they do. So if they have no mass, we can say they have no energy too since E=mc^2.

Hmm forces have no energy? I think they CARRY energy. I don't know

To answer your question, my bet would be that the unstoppable force will absorbed by the object and its energy converted into mass. The mass increases the size of the original object.
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!
9. (Original post by green.tea)
But then something would be stopping the force meeting the object.
Could just be traveling in the wrong direction.
10. (Original post by green.tea)
Could just be traveling in the wrong direction.
But then the fact that it was traveling in the wrong direction would stop it from meeting the object.
11. (Original post by green.tea)
But then the fact that it was traveling in the wrong direction would stop it from meeting the object.
So an unstoppable force would have to travel everywhere in order to not be stopped from traveling anywhere?
12. (Original post by green.tea)
So an unstoppable force would have to travel everywhere in order to not be stopped from traveling anywhere?
It'd have to not be stopped from being stopped... What a silly argument.
13. (Original post by green.tea)
It'd have to not be stopped from being stopped... What a silly argument.
Yeah.
14. Heath Ledger meets Mary Kate Olsen and Diazepam.
15. There could be a variety of outcomes depending on other relevant variables. But I'd assume that either the object subjected to the force or the immovable object would break.
16. Necro
17. I think it would accidentally the whole object.
18. You have successfully divided by 0
19. Can't the object just change the direction of the force? No paradox that I can see.
20. (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.
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 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.
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"....

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.

## Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
1. this can't be left blank
2. this can't be left blank
3. this can't be left blank

6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

4. this can't be left empty
1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register

Updated: August 1, 2012
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Today on TSR

### Your guide to A-level results day 2016

Here's what you can expect on the day, and how to make the most of it

Poll
Useful resources

## Articles:

Debate and current affairs forum guidelines