0
What else can I help you with?
What would happen if an irresistible force came into contact with an immovable object?
This scenario is a philosophical paradox as it presents a contradiction. The irresistible force and the immovable object cannot both exist in the same universe without breaking the laws of physics. It is a thought experiment used to explore concepts like infinity and the limitations of our understanding of the universe.
How do you use immovable in a sentence?
The immovable object met the irresistible force- and the sparks really flew.
What would happen if an unstoppable force hits an immovable object?
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.
What happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object?
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!
What happens when an irresistible force meets an unmovable object?
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...
How do you use immovable in sentence?
The immovable object met the irresistible force- and the sparks really flew.
What would happen if an irresistible force came into contact with an immovable object?
This scenario is a philosophical paradox as it presents a contradiction. The irresistible force and the immovable object cannot both exist in the same universe without breaking the laws of physics. It is a thought experiment used to explore concepts like infinity and the limitations of our understanding of the universe.
How do you use immovable in a sentence?
The immovable object met the irresistible force- and the sparks really flew.
What would happen if an unstoppable force hits an immovable object?
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.
What would happen if you put an anti-gravity field around a black hole?
That's an excellent question, sort of like "What happens when the Irresistible Force meets the Immovable Object?" We don't know.
What would happen if an immovable object got hit by an unstoppable force?
If the unstoppable object was smaller, then it would pierce a hole through the immovable object, not moving the object, and not stopping.
What happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object?
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!
What happens when an irresistible force meets an unmovable object?
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...
What is the meaning of irrefutable?
It is very refutable that she knows our secret.
What happenes when an unnstoppable object meets a un moveable object?
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.
What were to happen if an immovable object was collided by an unstoppable force?
This scenario poses a paradox because it assumes the existence of two contradictory concepts - an immovable object and an unstoppable force. In reality, both cannot coexist, so the outcome is undefined or illogical. Physics does not provide a definitive answer to this hypothetical situation.
Who would win a fight between the juggernaut and the incredible hulk?
This is a classic logic conundrum: an irresistible force verses an immovable object, what would triumph. Juggernaut being the immovable object and no data of his power rate, verses the Hulks irresistible force, keeping in mind that the hulk will get theoretically infinitely stronger the madder he gets. two infinite power levels, and two infinities would be a constant draw if both powers ramped up at an equal rate.
