First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
THE UNSTOPPABLE FORCE PARADOX
Posted 6/24/12
it's called laziness
2868 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 6/24/12
You make millions at the box office and get Oscar nods.
27230 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 6/24/12
It's like telling someone to draw a square circle. This just doesn't make sense.

You define something immobile as something that can't be moved.
You define something unstoppable as something that can't be stopped.

These two things are not capable of interacting. It's only one or the other.
72528 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 6/24/12
I am told that the Chinese characters for contradiction, 'mujun' in Japanese or 矛盾 which consists of two characters which mean pike and shield separately comes from an armorer who claimed his shields could stop any attack while his pikes could penetrate any armor. Someone asked, "what happens if you hit one of your shields with one of your pikes?" and the term for contradiction came about. Not sure it is a true story but it sounds cool anyways.
71569 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Other
Offline
Posted 6/24/12 , edited 6/24/12
As far as I'm aware, no force is unstoppable as that would effectively imply perpetual motion which probably doesn't exist as it goes against the first and second laws of thermodynamics, unless you are implying that time is an unstoppable force, in which case it wouldn't be affected by an object in the first place as such (as one of the previous posters said) time would pass through the immovable object.

But again an object requires the vibration of atoms and movement of electrons to effectively function, as such, an immovable object would always be in motion and "moving" so a paradox could in fact be an "Immovable object." (I'm not too certain that the stuff about the immovable object actually holds up to scrutiny so be nice).
Posted 6/24/12

AsuraCryin wrote:

I give OP a 1/10 for effort.


You are far too generous.
Banned
31569 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / The Void.
Offline
Posted 6/24/12
The end result of these two forces colliding will be a miracle.
35147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Nova Scotia, Canada
Offline
Posted 6/24/12
When an unstoppable force meets an immovable object, Chuck Norris is instantaneously summoned and bound to the conjurer that performed this feat for up to a maximum of 10 seconds, before he becomes unbound and free once more.

This is more than long enough for the conjurer to realize the terrible mistake they've made as he stares them down.
8782 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Gotham City
Offline
Posted 6/24/12 , edited 6/24/12
So I took out my TI graphing calculator and used the most advanced kinematics application available. I made sure to account for many variables, such as mass of the two objects, gravitational force, friction, potential and kinetic energy, conservation of momentum, loss of energy due to sound, inelastic and elastic collisions, and so on and so forth.

Secondly, I graphed a model of the most likely scenario of the collision between the unstoppable force and the immovable object, testing out multiple angles of attack and had the TI calculator simulate 10,000 different scenarios.

Then, when I finally pressed "ENTER" for the answer, all I got was....










Not a single fuck was given that day.
27230 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 6/25/12

Coffeebot wrote:

As far as I'm aware, no force is unstoppable as that would effectively imply perpetual motion which probably doesn't exist as it goes against the first and second laws of thermodynamics, unless you are implying that time is an unstoppable force, in which case it wouldn't be affected by an object in the first place as such (as one of the previous posters said) time would pass through the immovable object.

But again an object requires the vibration of atoms and movement of electrons to effectively function, as such, an immovable object would always be in motion and "moving" so a paradox could in fact be an "Immovable object." (I'm not too certain that the stuff about the immovable object actually holds up to scrutiny so be nice).


Come to think of it, both would also need to be indestructible (including being completely immune to the effects of time). Yeah, not happening, since neither an immovable object nor an unstoppable force can exist.
1078 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F / US
Offline
Posted 6/25/12
What would an example of this immovable object be?
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.