if an immovable object was acted upon by an unstoppable force, what would happen scientifically speaking?
>>7930196
They would go through each other, dipshit
>>7930196
a big guy
>>7930196
a big guy
I don't know OP, ask your mom that question.
boom
CIA
>>7930203
>a force
>a object
>through each other
>>7930196
pass through each other
>>7930227
please explain what would happen
They surrender
>>7930196
Your question sucks, it has too many contradictions you fuck.
>>7930196
The objects would compress together releasing energy, possibly transmuting into other elements, degenerate matter (neutron star) or even a black hole.
Assuming:
A) the immovable object is a stationary object whose velocity cannot change
and
B) the unstoppable force is an object in motion whose velocity cannot change
The unstoppable force would pass through the immovable object, as neither one of the objects in questions velocities can be altered by the other
>>7930196
Let E be the total energy of the universe
For an object to be unstoppable, its kinetic energy must be >0.5E
For an object to be immovable, it must simply be an unstoppable force seen from an inertial frame of reference in which it is stationary and therefore its kinetic energy must also be >0.5E
Therefore, both an unstoppable force and an immovable object cannot exist in the same universe at the same time.
t. Einstein
>>7930196
Language is bigger than reality. Such a situation could not exist.
In engineering terms, nothing would happen. If I hit an object with not enough force to move it or deform its structure then nothing has happened to it. (In b4 kinetic energy & heat etc.) Except that if the object in question is either truly immovable or rigid then it's not something we have in our universe so who da fuq knows?
>>7930468
immovable relative to what exactly? the better word would be unaccellerateable
We will see if the object is truly immovable or if the force is unstoppable for real.
>>7930196
The unstoppable force would redirect or pass through the immovable object. Depending on what they are made of.
/thread
It'd split in the | direction, until after splitting, moving over the immovable object, and later recombining.
>>7930742
It'd temporarily engulf the immovable object before proceeding.
>>7930223
The existence of an immovable object denies the existence of an unstoppable force, and vice versa.
You are fucking retarded, what if the force is generated by gravitational pull of another body of infinite mass? Or by an elettric field of infinite strength?
The idea that there are two body touching each other is not in the assumption and you pulled it out of your ass because you saw it on minute physics.
The correct answer is this.
Lim m->infinity (Lim f->infinity (f/m) ) = undefined.
You must specify the relationship between force and mass, if you want the acceleration.
>>7930196
Wouldn't an unstopable force also be unstartable because if it can't be stopped what will stop it from being nothing in the first place?
>>7930227
All forces go through objects and all objects go through fields of force, they are used together to define each other.
>>7931277
No, they are applied at objects. A moving force has no sense. The application point can change, but it does not go through the object.
>>7931300
A force goes through a field which an object goes through, you can estimate what the value will be at any discrete point, but the force itself is a function through a field.
>>7930196
Nice scp you got there m8
>>7931308
No, a object move in a force fields and forces are applied to him. Forces do not have an indipendent existence from the object they are applied to.
>>7931311
Yes besides the fields that you already agreed exists, forces have their own direction and magnitude that differs from that of the obect's direction and physical magnitude which can be conceptualized with force diagrams that sometimes require two complimentary objects to register a force such as with friction, voltage or pressure.
>>7930196
Scientifically speaking, immovable objects and unstoppable forces do not exist.
What the actual fuck does it mean to "stop" a force? Bring an object it acts on into equilibrium relative to a constant velocity reference frame by applying additional forces?
>>7930196
Shitposting
>>7930603
relative to itself
>>7930196
>unstoppable force
How does one "stop" a force? Forces act upon, they don't get acted on.
first define object
what if an unstoppable sphere were to collide with an immovable sphere?
i think this is the spirit of the OP question
>>7930603
What other definition of 'immovable' can there be than unacceleratable?
>>7930196
my cock would LITERALLY BE IN YOUR FUCKING ASSHOLE
They would pass through each other,
>>7932878
Scientifically speaking mate.
You should say 'My penis will be in your anus'
>force
>unstoppable
I like dog
>>7930196
> philosophers and wannabe philosophers
> playing pointless word games since Socrates perfected the art ca 400 BC
>>7930196
Ever thought that perhaps it is the unstoppable force that makes the object unmovable?
Can God make an object so massive even he can't move it?
>>7930196
They switch roles.
Not a troll answer. Scientifically proven.
