Unstoppable Force Vs. Immovable Object: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » Unstoppable Force Vs. Immovable Object » Unstoppable Force Vs. Immovable Object

Unstoppable Force Vs. Immovable Object

Page: 1 2 3 4

Unstoppable Force Vs. Immovable Object

Theaetetus
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 22, 2005

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 38

Posted 12/25/05 - 02:05 PM:	#11
P.S. Actually, the original question asks what happens when a force, a form of energy, strikes an object, a form of matter.

breal
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 08/05/09 - 10:47 AM: Subject: Unstoppable Force Vs. Immovable Object	#12
I find it interesting that in a philosophical forum, the posts refer to scientific terms such as "atoms" etc in an attempt to justify their opinion or theory. I also find it intersting that there was an assumption that an unstoppable force simply travels "straight ahead" and that it would be forced to travel "thru" an immovable object or collide with it in some way. An unstoppable force is quite simply "unstoppable" and, therefore, cannot be stopped. If an immovable object does not move, how could it ever hope to stop an unstoppable force? The immovable object could never achieve any action to stop the force. It could never move into the forces way. It could never aspire to be anything but "immovable". In contrast, an "unstoppable force" would never allow itself to be stopped. An unstoppable force would never limit itself to a method of moving that would deter it from being unstoppable, for example just a straight line. The comparison to a cannonball is also limited in this way. Why not acid or an army that utilizes multiple tactics to destroy an enemy? If I were unstoppable, perhaps I would simply stroll around the immovable object laughing at it the whole time. How dare it aspire to stop me? hahaha Why would I bother to attempt to occupy the same space as an immovable object if I were, in fact, unstoppable? Is it human nature that we instinctually assume that something unstoppable must strike or crash against something in order to prove it is unstoppable? Perhaps, it justifies the human need for war or competition or domination? An unstoppable force could be a person with an ambitious goal which, despite mistakes or failures or setbacks or sabotage or opposing forces, was ultimately achieved. Should we assume that an unstoppable force is always moving? Should we assume that an unstoppable force must be an object or matter? Perhaps it is unstoppable because it always manages to figure out how "not" to be stopped. An immovable object is inherently limited in movement and an ustoppable force is not. Should an unstoppable force decide not to move, it would still not necessarily be "immovable" and if the force did "stop". Who is to say that it could be "stopped" once it resumed it's movement? Edited by breal on 08/05/09 - 10:57 AM

xzJoel
Bio-clump

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 30, 2005
Location: New Jersey

Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 843

Posted 08/05/09 - 11:31 AM:	#13
What do you imagine an unstoppable force to be? Is it, perhaps, that the force travels in a wave and the unmovable object occupies a node of that wave relative the force's direction of travel? Simple solutions for simple problems. Things don't have to move to transmit energy/force. Call it crazy or call it physics, it doesn't matter.
Make a joyous noise onto the lord... Not a good one, just a joyous one.

play
Tat Tvam Asi

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 20, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 111

Posted 08/05/09 - 09:01 PM:	#14
Testingzors wrote: Keeping in mind the fact that the immovable object's atoms are assumably in a fixed position This trespasses on the issue of relativity. According to whom is the Object not moving? For an immovable object to exist its position in space must remain a constant in all reference frames and everything else moves relative to it but has no motion of its own. To all observers, no matter their speed or direction, it will appear to be fixed to them. In other words it would be the inertial reference frame of the universe. Therefore it would be impossible for the Force to move closer to the Object because both their reference frames are linked. From the point of view of the Force it will simply never get there. Testingzors wrote: Another thing to consider is that the unstoppable force's atoms are in the fixed position of "straight ahead" Straightness is also a relativistic term as space itself can bend so that the Force is moving straight from its own reference frame but appears to change course to an outside observer. So, although from the point of view of the Force it's not moving toward the Object, to outside observers it is bending and warping the fabric of space-time itself as it tries to near the Object since even space-time must give way to the Force's "intrinsic motion." This would cause an infinite collapse in space-time creating something like a black hole singularity except that instead of gravity overwhelming all other forces it is the Force's intrinsic motion. How's that for taking liberties with physics, eh? Edited by play on 08/05/09 - 09:12 PM
There once was a man who said so, "It seems that I know that I know. But what I would like to see Is the I that knows me when I know that I know that I know."

Aceedwin
Default Rank Rejecter

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 22, 2009
Location: The universe. Possibly.

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 121

Posted 08/05/09 - 11:02 PM:	#15
I hope one of you already put this, for the sake of this specie's common sense. The simple answer is that neither can exist at the same time.
Some people enjoy finding answers, but I dislike losing questions.

123savethewhales
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 346

Posted 08/06/09 - 02:20 AM:	#16
This sounds a lot like the Chinese story about the ultimate shield vs ultimate spear, where the merchant describe his spear to pierce anything and his shield to blocks everything. The listeners then ask what would happen if both of them clash, to which the merchant have no respond. "Spear shield" is now literally the term for contradiction. Going into immovable object vs unstoppable force. If you take space into account, they can both exist in the same universe providing the following conditions are meet. 1. The universe is flat 2. The path of which the unstoppable force travels does not collide with the immovable object Since it is impossible for them to meet, as no third force can put them on a collision course, it remains impossible for the immovable object to be moved or the unstoppable force to be stop. What would happen if you hypothetically put them together does not change the impossibility of such an event. Of course, while there are no such thing as immovable object in our universe, we do have plenty of unstoppable forces. Most protons for example are unstoppable, as they will not collide with anything and races out into empty space faster than anything object than can get in the way. Neutrino is another interesting case, although it is more of an object. It simply pass right through most things without ever interacting with it. Remember atoms have massive amount of empty space, repelling other objects only through it's electromagnetic field, if objects or force does not interact, it can pass right through the immovable without moving it at all (though it would almost be like my second condition above). Edited by 123savethewhales on 08/06/09 - 02:44 AM
Keep it simple.

Phaedruswax
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 104

Posted 08/06/09 - 04:18 AM:	#17
123savethewhales wrote: This sounds a lot like the Chinese story about the ultimate shield vs ultimate spear, where the merchant describe his spear to pierce anything and his shield to blocks everything. The listeners then ask what would happen if both of them clash, to which the merchant have no respond. "Spear shield" is now literally the term for contradiction. Going into immovable object vs unstoppable force. If you take space into account, they can both exist in the same universe providing the following conditions are meet. 1. The universe is flat 2. The path of which the unstoppable force travels does not collide with the immovable object Since it is impossible for them to meet, as no third force can put them on a collision course, it remains impossible for the immovable object to be moved or the unstoppable force to be stop. What would happen if you hypothetically put them together does not change the impossibility of such an event. Of course, while there are no such thing as immovable object in our universe, we do have plenty of unstoppable forces. Most protons for example are unstoppable, as they will not collide with anything and races out into empty space faster than anything object than can get in the way. Neutrino is another interesting case, although it is more of an object. It simply pass right through most things without ever interacting with it. Remember atoms have massive amount of empty space, repelling other objects only through it's electromagnetic field, if objects or force does not interact, it can pass right through the immovable without moving it at all (though it would almost be like my second condition above). If you're friends with newton, you can easily see that the immovable object would be required to possess unstoppable force, of inertia. If you're trying to talk about time, xeno's arrow is WAY more interesting.

ecspose
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 11, 2005

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 144

Posted 08/18/09 - 05:52 PM:	#18
I think the only answer is that the unstoppable force remains unstopped, and the immovable object remains unmoved. How the exact details of this event unfold, is not of primary importance. Many different explanations could be built to satisfy the result, but the result is not at the mercy of the analysis. Because we know the two initial conditions must be enduring, attacking circumstances which allow or disallow for their existence is not really productive. Hypothetical questions must make concession to hypothetical situations. If the logic of a question is broken, then there's equally no concern of it being a hindrance to the answer.
Self replication leads to self replication

123savethewhales
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 346

Posted 08/20/09 - 07:20 AM:	#19
Phaedruswax wrote: If you're friends with newton, you can easily see that the immovable object would be required to possess unstoppable force, of inertia. If you're trying to talk about time, xeno's arrow is WAY more interesting. If unstoppable force simply means, force that can't be stop, then it can mean 1. Something with an infinite amount of force (not my definition), which would result in an infinite amount of reaction to produce an infinite number of action. Which is where the immovable object comes into play. 2. The fastest possible object (object with the lowest amount of mass), which happens to travel at a path where it will not be collide with anything. Neutrino fits the bill since no known objects with mass can catch up to it. It becomes unstoppable the moment it pass all larger objects in space. This version would not require an immovable object to generate unstoppable force. All you need is a nuclear power plant.
Keep it simple.

Yahadreas
YHDRS

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 02, 2006
Location: Awesometown

Total Topics: 54
Total Posts: 1904

Posted 08/20/09 - 07:46 AM:	#20
A lot of people have already said this, but I want to say it anyway; I want to join the ranks of clever people. If there is an unstoppable force then there is not an immovable object. If there is an immovable object then there is not an unstoppable force. It would be like asking "what would happen if it both rains and doesn't rain, right here, right now?" The question contains a contradiction. But only if we take "immovable object" to mean an object that resists every force, and "unstoppable force" to mean a force that moves every object. If we take "immovable object" to mean an object that cannot be moved, and "unstoppable force" to mean a force that cannot be resisted, then the two could exist, and would simply 'pass through' each other. Like bosons, which are exempt from the Pauli Exclusion Principle.
I am awesome.

Page: 1 2 3 4

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.