Unstoppable force meets immovable object

[bottomlander]

OK Answer Time:

The unstoppable force ( object ) would either go through the immovable force or it would go around it.

Like when neutrinos hit me or the Earth, they just pass through. Or light going through the sun, it might get detoured but it keeps on going.

Or it might go around like light bending around the sun or the wind going over and around the mountains.

Very good answers.

While thinking about this I couldn't imagine anything immovable really.

In fact it appears that movement itself might be one of those unstoppable forces.

I agree that even though macro motions can be at rest, but micro motions are forever (or have very long spans of time).

Maybe the expansion of the universe is also unstoppable,but then again it may stop.

Best to all,

Pat

I appreciate this talent cogitation as a complement to this good thread.


Best Regards. Bottomlander

[Profpat]

Thank you for your response bottomlander.

Now its time to think about the "CONCEPTS" of eternity, infinity and perpetual versus the "REALITY" of time, space and motion.

Best to you,

Pat

[mkirkpatrick]

Thank you for your response bottomlander.

Now its time to think about the "CONCEPTS" of eternity, infinity and perpetual versus the "REALITY" of time, space and motion.

Best to you,

Pat

Now you are talking,cheers Pat.



regards michael.

[labelwench]

The two concepts cannot exist in the same universe together. An immovable object would require a universe where time is stopped. A universe without time. That isn't our universe. Therefore there are no immovable objects in our universe.

Hmmm, we could move a mountain with a tablespoon and a bucket, given enough time. IMHO, conceiving of an irresistable force on the larger scale is only one possibility.

An inexorable force, given sufficient time, might also suffice for this model.

[MikeInfinity]

A Universe is created.

[labelwench]

"Unstoppable force" and "immoveable object" are but abstracts to my way of thinking, rather like "infinity" expressed differently.

However, were such to exist, the perpetual resistance between them should be the balancing force, which would occasionally swing in favour of one over the other, as if an eternal wrestling match were taking place.

This would be from the perspective of an outside observer.

Perhaps this interplay of mediums is taking place inside the observer?

[Unreal Zelta]

It seems like the argument is at a stalemate. The two absolutes do not cancel each other out, nor do they combine together. They merely coexist as two tendencies. But it would be interesting to see the reactions of a collison between the two.

So the non-causal relationship between the two simply means that no work is done.

regards

Zelta

[Profpat]

My answer is in post #10 above.

[labelwench]

The two concepts cannot exist in the same universe together. An immovable object would require a universe where time is stopped. A universe without time. That isn't our universe. Therefore there are no immovable objects in our universe.

I would suggest that the immovable object does exist, and it is in the thought experiment of the mind that is unable to take in new and demonstrable information, if such information is at variance to the inherent belief system of the individual.

Entrenched, yet unverifiable beliefs systems.

We all have them, at various times in our life, imposed by social conditioning, or self imposed from taking too narrow a view of life.

Entrenched belief systems.

Verifiable.

Historically.

Daily.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Nor is any force irresistible [except for women' influence on men].

Hope there isn't a black hole nearby.