The Irresistible Force vs. The Immovable Object

Psiogen · Post by **Psiogen** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:51 pm

Who would win in a fight?

Joel Fagin · Post by **Joel Fagin** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 10:09 pm

I would.

Now ask a hard one, would ya?

- Joel Fagin

Stinkywigfiddle · Post by **Stinkywigfiddle** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 10:39 pm

"Object" implies that it is something physical. Anything physical cannot be immovable, since everything is moving and changing. Force can be continual, and eventually would cause the "immovable" object to change in some way or another.

Tim · Post by **Tim** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:10 pm

My physics professor brushed off the question, claiming neither could actually exist.

But if I had to choose, I'll say Irresistable Force. The Object may be immovable, but that doesn't mean it's indestructable. >;-)

I almost said "unmovable". Me fail English? That's unpossible!

Jim North · Post by **Jim North** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:41 am

Either way, the losers would be anyone near this reality-tearing explosion when it hits. It could theoretically tear the universe asunder with the massive energy discharge it would generate.

Of course, that's worst case scenario. The damage may be very localized, possibly limited to our own galaxy.

Dutch! · Post by **Dutch!** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 2:18 am

The one who smuggled in the knuckle dusters...

Cow! · Post by **Cow!** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 3:50 am

Neither, they would both burn up from the friction.

..

oh.. wait.. were we being funny?

damn.

JexKerome · Post by **JexKerome** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 4:41 am

They'd both win. The irresistible force would destroy the object, but the object itself would NOT have moved, but simply ceased to be. So both deliver as promised and everyone's happy.

JPSloan · Post by **JPSloan** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 5:15 am

I remember the day I solved the logical quandary.

Can an immovable object and an irresistable force exist in the same universe?

Yes, they can... if they are the same entity. However, you can not have more than one such entity in a universe.

I vote for immovable object, as it is more efficient with energy.

Terotrous · Post by **Terotrous** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 5:18 am

This is a renamed version of Juggernaught vs The Blob, right?

Warren · Post by **Warren** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 5:42 am

Everyone knows Triangle Man would win.

Grabmygoblin · Post by **Grabmygoblin** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 7:42 am

Warren wrote:Everyone knows Triangle Man would win.

triangle man is an asshole.

Terotrous wrote:This is a renamed version of Juggernaught vs The Blob, right?

or if you perfer, Juggernaught vs. Hulk, Hulk vs. Thor, The Blob vs. Thor, Juggernaught vs. Thor etc etc etc

Phact0rri · Post by **Phact0rri** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 8:11 am

Terotrous wrote:This is a renamed version of Juggernaught vs The Blob, right?

no no no...

The Umovable Blob yes, but Juggy is not irrestistable.. it'd be like The Blob V.S. Murmur (she has that pheromone power after all)

Cope · Post by **Cope** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 9:03 am

I vote immovable object in the hope that my stubborn attitudes will pay off someday.

Rkolter · Post by **Rkolter** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 9:04 am

An absolutely irresistable force would have to have infinite energy in able to be absolutely irresistable.

An absolutely immobile object would have to be infinitely dense (such that it could not be moved by the rest of the universe).

Matter and energy are equal.

Thus, it's simple to think of the two as different versions of the same object.

No such infinities exist; if they did, there would be an infinite number of them, or just one. The arguement:

Just one: One thing (be it a force or object) incapable of being subdivided.

Many: With infinite mass (or energy) you could subdivide that into an infinite number of pieces, each with infinite mass (or energy). The wonders of infinity.

Now, if it's a single object, then you've solved the problem - there is no other force or object to act upon it.

If it's an infinite number of objects, you've got no problem either - when two collide, they will merge, their mass will remain infinite, they can be talked about as though they are still seperate. From a scientific perspective, you can still describe the combined object as both an unstoppable force, and an immobile object.

But, since infinite energy/mass doesn't exist within our universe; the question is moot.

JPSloan · Post by **JPSloan** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 9:21 am

Well, technically, the irresistable force does not require infinite momentum, nor does the immovable object require infinite density.

They just require more than any other force/object that exists in its universe, as their modifiers are comparative. Say the densest object in the universe is 10^1000kg/c.i., and the strongest force in the universe is incapable of moving it, it is still immovable, but not infinitely dense.

Then again, the law of gravitation makes that impossible, as every particle in the universe exerts gravitational force on every other particle in the universe. Again, due to relative forces, even the densest object would be seen outside of a frame of reference as being acted upon.

Of course, I believe this is more of a philosophical/logical thought problem and less astrophysical.

BrownEyedCat · Post by **BrownEyedCat** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 9:27 am

God, I love this message board.

JPSloan · Post by **JPSloan** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 9:33 am

Hey... I just figured it out!

The Law of Gravitation IS the irresistable force!

Rkolter · Post by **Rkolter** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 9:57 am

JPSloan wrote:They just require more than any other force/object that exists in its universe, as their modifiers are comparative. Say the densest object in the universe is 10^1000kg/c.i., and the strongest force in the universe is incapable of moving it, it is still immovable, but not infinitely dense.

Then again, the law of gravitation makes that impossible, as every particle in the universe exerts gravitational force on every other particle in the universe. Again, due to relative forces, even the densest object would be seen outside of a frame of reference as being acted upon.

You talked out my point - since gravity acts on the so-called fabric of spacetime itself, only an infinitely dense object would be capable of remaining stationary.

As for the force, if it weren't infinitely powerful, then it could be acted upon, at least locally, and altered.

JPSloan wrote:Hey... I just figured it out!

The Law of Gravitation IS the irresistable force!

Hm. Irresistable in that you can never truely escape its effects, yeah. But not irresistable in that it cannot be overcome.

It's just not a proper question - even a philosophical question aught to have a moral. There's no answer, no moral... it's just... a dumb question.

Jim North · Post by **Jim North** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 10:32 am

It's a mental exercise. Mental exercises don't have to have answers or morals . . . they just have to test your mental facilities for a short time.

Terotrous wrote:This is a renamed version of Juggernaught vs The Blob, right?

Basically, but it's slightly different. The Juggernaut is unstoppable, not irresistable, which is actually two different things. Therefore, it's easier to determine what would happen if Juggy ran full on into Blobby . . . ol' Marko would bounce off, shooting away in a completely different direction at the same speed he was moving at before. Therefore, the Juggernaut remains unstoppable (since he is still moving, after all) while the Blob remains unmovable.

There's also the idea that it would end up in a complete transferance of energy (the Juggernaut coming to a complete standstill while the Blob shoots off at Juggy's original speed), but that's a little unsatisfactory, since it denotes a complete defeat of each person's respective abilities.

Comic Genesis Forums

The Irresistible Force vs. The Immovable Object

ANSWER ME!

The Irresistible Force vs. The Immovable Object