Jump to content

Which would prevail? The Imovable object or the Irresistible force?

Aethon

By Aethon
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

Aethon

Aethon

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Nope never seen the vid. Running out the door to work but'll check it out later. Learned it in philosophy class at university years ago. I'm guessing the link kinda ruins this post, so care to pony up the answer in your own words? Shiny rep points at stake. I'll check in later

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nikolai

Nikolai

Posted
Posted

It can't happen because the definitions of the two objects are mutually exclusive. Keep in mind that the adjectives of these things are making logically necessary claims about the rest of their domain -- and their (implied) domain is all of reality.

If there is such a thing as an irresistible force, that means, by definition, that there is no such thing as an immovable object, anywhere in reality.

If there is such a thing as an immovable object, that means, by definition, that there is no such thing as an irresistible force, anywhere in reality.

In other words, it's a semantics game that hopes you won't notice the logical consequences of the definitions it employs. Even if an irresistible force or an immovable object can exist, they can't exist simultaneously, any more than a shape can be perfectly round and perfectly square at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vger

vger

Posted
Posted

I can't even be certain what the intent is. Should "irresistible" be interpreted as something that one must automatically gravitate towards?

If so, I look at it as a scenario involving magnets. The irresistible force would get pulled to the immovable object.

That doesn't really define what "prevail" is though. Because prevail would seem to imply that one of the two 'parties' would be forced to act outside of its typical nature. In my scenario, neither actually loses. Nothing in the phrase, "irresistible force," implies that it cannot be made to bend to the will of something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr_Brain

Mr_Brain

Posted
Posted

Assuming that the irresistible force is simply an infinitely strong force and the immovable objects is immovable because it's infinitely heavy (infinity kg), we get

acceleration=(infinity*N)/(infinity*kg)

Infinity and infinity cancel out, so we get 1 m/s² of acceleration – the immovable object is accelerated.

But wait! What if we used other units? Because it's infinity, you can't exactly change how infinite it is. So, we don't really get 1 m/s² of acceleration, but the immovable object is accelerated by 1 [insert unit of your choice here]. Which doesn't really make any sense, because there's a difference between 1 meter per second² and 1 picometer/century².

So, the irresistible force wins. I'm approximately 100% sure that I made at least one mistake here, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dodgey

Dodgey

Posted
Posted

The question is mal formed in the first place. All objects are moving. What the question should be is "What occurs when two unstoppable objects collide?"

On a tangent I would like to know what would happen if two black holes collided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aethon

Aethon

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Tee hee. Thanks all for the responses. Almost don't want to close the thread.

As to the malformation of the question, it is not mine but formed in another language ages ago. I don't know how to say it any better. It's like how I build my rockets. Sure nosecones harm overall rocket performance, but sometimes you balance between functionality and aesthetics. So etymologically I think the spirit of the question is clear.

It's a tough one. I've asked it of many over a Guinness and no one has ever given me the right answer- 'till today.

Kudos to Nikolai the recipient of the a fore mentioned rep points (can't believe it but the minute physics vid was not what I was looking for. They're usually so good). A very well worded reply

As to semantics (don't get me started) many things break down due to the structure and shortcomings of our language. I look at it as more of a logic puzzle, kinda like this one :

You are in a house. Your compass says that all the walls face South. A bear walks by.

What color is the bear.

I wouldn't have used the word reality (semantics again but seriously, even Plato couldn't define a word as simple as 'good').

There may be an irresistible force in this or some other universe, but in any universe where there was an irresistible force there couldn't by definition be an immovable object and vice versa.

Oh and thanks for not mentioning what a dumb xxx I look like for misspelling Immovable in the header.

K I'm off to play with my new Tarsier Tech. Spaaaaace telescope.

edit http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/81965-Space-telescopes-are-cool%21

Edited by Aethon
Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...