It would have to be an unstoppable force if the object was immovable.
This is an exercise in logic. If an unstoppable force exists, then an immovable object cannot exist, because it would be able to be moved by the unstoppable force, and vice versa. Sideways Logic The unstoppable force does not "stop", the immovable object does not move : the unstoppable force ricochets off the immovable object!
If the unstoppable object was smaller, then it would pierce a hole through the immovable object, not moving the object, and not stopping.
You can't. Hence the name 'unstoppable'. An unstoppable force, upon hitting something, would push the other object aside and continue onwards. The only problem is if you have both an unstoppable force and an immovable object. The force can't push the object aside, and the object can't stop the force. The solution is fairly simple, however - the unstoppable force is deflected off to the side when the two collide. It isn't stopped, but continues in a different direction. The immovable object doesn't move. Easy. Alternately, the following happens: the unstoppable force continues straight onwards, and the object doesn't move. Since the two can't change in their actions, space itself is twisted to allow the force to pass through the object without moving it in any way. Having an unstoppable force and an immovable object is both theoretically and practically impossible anyway, so this entire line of questioning is fairly pointless.
well, to put it simply neither would win. Its a Paradox.
the particles would split tocreate multiple unstoppable objects
Let's see: An immovable object has infinite inertia, so it has an infinite mass. An unstoppable force is probably infinite as well. Were we in the finite domain, we could useNewton's second law that says: F=ma, or a = F/m.Therefore the body would be accelerated by the quotient of the force and mass.Here we go into the speculative domain - if the infinities are equivalent,I will divide them and get a constant, therefore there is a constant acceleration and the unstoppable force wins (the object moves).The part where I cheated was when dividing infinities, which is not a well-defined mathematical operation.I believe we could say this: an unstoppable force would win over an equally immovable object.
here are a few ideas. (assuming that you break a couple laws of everything.)*The unstoppable force would change the direction of motion.*The Unstoppable force would pass through it.*And the most probable (in this impossible situation): nothing, pure unadulterated nothing.*This is a paradox and it is impossible.The irresistible force paradox, also called the unstoppable force paradox, is a classic paradox formulated as "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?" This paradox is a form of the omnipotence paradox, which is a simple demonstration that challenges omnipotence: ("Can God create a stone so heavy that not even God is strong enough to lift it?"). The immovable object and the irresistible force are both implicitly assumed to be indestructible, or else the question would have a trivial resolution ("it destroys it"). Furthermore, it is assumed that they are two separate entities, since an irresistible force is implicitly an immovable object, and vice versa.The paradox arises because it rests on two premises-that there exist such things as irresistible forces and immovable objects-which cannot both be true at once. If there exists an irresistible force, it follows logically that there cannot be any such thing as an immovable object, and vice versa
Basic paradoxes are examples of questions that cannot be answered. For example, what happens when an immovable object meets an unstoppable force? Since neither an immovable object nor an unstoppable force exist in reality, there is no way to determine what would happen in this theoretical situation. Source: personal experience
The answer is actually very simple. When the force hits the object, the force would shake slightly, just keep shaking on the object. That way the object won't move, and the force won't stop. This doesn't break any laws of physics, either.Or that fact that you can't have both at the same time. If it is unstoppable then nothing can be unmovable and vice versa. i think that the unstoppable force would win. If the force is U, and the object is also then U-U=nothing. BUT! when the force is moving it gathers speed and if speed is represented as S then it U becomes US. so US-S=S. and all that is left of the force is s then it wins.AnswerThere is no such thing as an unstoppable force, or an immovable object. Things like nuclear explosions or planets come close, but not close enough.AnswerThis is known as the 'Irresistible Force Paradox'.An irresistible force would have to possess (effectively) infinite energy, which is impossible for a finite universe. Also, for a universe in which irresistible forces are possible, immovable objects would not be (therein lies the crux of the paradox). For the sake of the question, we would also have to assume that both are indestructible, subverting the obvious answer that both would be destroyed.This is related to the 'Omniscience Paradox' - the question "can God create a stone that is too heavy for even Him to lift?"If an irresistible force meets an immovable object, the immovable object moves and the irresistible force stops. This is one rational answer for an irrational question.Another view: They get married, settle down, raise a few kids, and live happily ever after...
AnswerThere is no such thing as an unstoppable force, or an immovable object. Things like nuclear explosions or planets come close, but not close enough.AnswerThis is known as the 'Irresistible Force Paradox'.An irresistible force would have to possess (effectively) infinite energy, which is impossible for a finite universe. Also, for a universe in which irresistible forces are possible, immovable objects would not be (therein lies the crux of the paradox). For the sake of the question, we would also have to assume that both are indestructible, subverting the obvious answer that both would be destroyed.This is related to the 'Omniscience Paradox' - the question "can God create a stone that is too heavy for even Him to lift?"If an irresistible force meets an immovable object, the immovable object moves and the irresistible force stops. This is one rational answer for an irrational question.
There would be an endless transfer of energyIsaac Asimov answered this question rather neatly, I thought. I can't remember in which of his many books I read it (it was a long time ago), but the gist of his argument was this: A universe in which there exists such a thing as an irresistible force is, by definition, a universe which cannot also contain an immovable object. And a universe which contains an immovable object cannot, by definition, also contain an irresistible force. So the question is essentially meaningless: either the force is irresistible or the object is immovable, but not both.This was my first introduction to philosophy. It was also my first introduction to the notion that ideas which are actually incoherent, when analysed, can nevertheless be extremely useful metaphors. I can think of no better way to describe some encounters between two-year-olds and their mothers, for example.----The correct setup would be "What would happen if an immovable object were confronted with an unstoppable force." We will have to further define out unstoppable force as having infinite momentum (right?) and the immovable object having infinite inertia (right.) Therefore, our unstoppable force would have an infinite energy (measure this in joules/calories/whatever) and the unstoppable force would be able to absorb infinite energy.There would be an endless transfer of energy.The two would appear as if they are resting, but are actually transferring their infinite energies from one to the other. Equilibrium or a relation would never be established since we're dealing in the infinite regarding energy.