What does happen when an unstoppable force meets an unmovable object? I have thought up several different solutions to this conundrum, most of which do not bode well for the unmovable object in terms of accomplishing its goal of stopping all forces.
1) In such, it is never posited that there is no space around the unmovable object, therefore making it so the unstoppable force can go around, above or below the unmovable object.
2) Combining #1s and 3, if the unstoppable force can get above the unmovable object and if the unmovable object is able to be destroyed, without it moving, then with enough downward force, the unmovable object could be crushed, destroyed, without it moving, not stopping the force.
3) In such, it is never posited that the unmovable object is unbreakable. If the unmovable object is breakable, then what is stopping the unstoppable force from plowing right through the middle of the unmovable object?
4) What about the unstoppable force moving in a different direction than which the unmovable object is located? Since the object is unable to move, then it is, therefore, unable to move into the new path of the unstoppable force.
"What about the unmovable object breaking the unstoppable force?" you may be asking. There are a few problems with this, unfortunately. Firstly, destroying the unstoppable force will create such a great about of friction, destroying its inertia, therefore slowing it down and, effectively, stopping it, depending on the reason of its destruction as well as how thorough the destruction was. If the force was completely destroyed, then it cannot move since it no longer exists. Things that don't exist can't move. Secondly, forces cannot be destroyed, only inhibited from moving.
Naturally, the question itself comes with some major assumptions.
1) Newton's Law of Motion does not exist; the object would have to somehow come to its position, which would require motion, not to mention it becoming its present size, which is also a motion. According to Newton, since it was in motion at some point, it is, therefore, still in motion and can never not be in motion.
2) The makeup of the object is one large macro-subatomic particle (one big neutron). If it is not, then, unless the object is at absolute zero, its atoms would be in constant motion, therefore making the object always in motion. Ties together well with #1.
3) That all of this is happening in a gravity-less vacuum. If this event does not occur in such an environment, then the particles in the air, as well as gravity, will create friction which will eventually slow the inertia of the force down to such a level that it would seem like it has stopped. Of course, taking #1 into account, no force that was in motion can ever be stopped, therefore making the entire question a pointless exercise.
Clearly, the unstoppable force is superior to the unmovable object. That is, of course, if an unmovable object can even exist or that a force that is in motion can be stopped by some kind of other force or object.
1) In such, it is never posited that there is no space around the unmovable object, therefore making it so the unstoppable force can go around, above or below the unmovable object.
2) Combining #1s and 3, if the unstoppable force can get above the unmovable object and if the unmovable object is able to be destroyed, without it moving, then with enough downward force, the unmovable object could be crushed, destroyed, without it moving, not stopping the force.
3) In such, it is never posited that the unmovable object is unbreakable. If the unmovable object is breakable, then what is stopping the unstoppable force from plowing right through the middle of the unmovable object?
4) What about the unstoppable force moving in a different direction than which the unmovable object is located? Since the object is unable to move, then it is, therefore, unable to move into the new path of the unstoppable force.
"What about the unmovable object breaking the unstoppable force?" you may be asking. There are a few problems with this, unfortunately. Firstly, destroying the unstoppable force will create such a great about of friction, destroying its inertia, therefore slowing it down and, effectively, stopping it, depending on the reason of its destruction as well as how thorough the destruction was. If the force was completely destroyed, then it cannot move since it no longer exists. Things that don't exist can't move. Secondly, forces cannot be destroyed, only inhibited from moving.
Naturally, the question itself comes with some major assumptions.
1) Newton's Law of Motion does not exist; the object would have to somehow come to its position, which would require motion, not to mention it becoming its present size, which is also a motion. According to Newton, since it was in motion at some point, it is, therefore, still in motion and can never not be in motion.
2) The makeup of the object is one large macro-subatomic particle (one big neutron). If it is not, then, unless the object is at absolute zero, its atoms would be in constant motion, therefore making the object always in motion. Ties together well with #1.
3) That all of this is happening in a gravity-less vacuum. If this event does not occur in such an environment, then the particles in the air, as well as gravity, will create friction which will eventually slow the inertia of the force down to such a level that it would seem like it has stopped. Of course, taking #1 into account, no force that was in motion can ever be stopped, therefore making the entire question a pointless exercise.
Clearly, the unstoppable force is superior to the unmovable object. That is, of course, if an unmovable object can even exist or that a force that is in motion can be stopped by some kind of other force or object.
No comments:
Post a Comment