You get penetration. The irresistible force will penetrate the immovable object. That outcome preserves the character of the two participants. The force remains irresistible and the object remains unmoved.
what is the answer to the old question about the immovable object and the irresistible force?
by Hortensia 30 Replies latest social current
-
-
prologos
neonmadman: good observation so: little me, trying to think again:
There is only one way to have an unmovable object:
when the work is finished, there is nothing outside the Object left, nothing, nobody.
It has to be an object that makes itself. Many non-believers believe, that
THE UNIVERSE is such an Object, It made Itself.
It does not move, but expands on itself.
-
Viviane
You get penetration. The irresistible force will penetrate the immovable object. That outcome preserves the character of the two participants. The force remains irresistible and the object remains unmoved
Unfortunately, no. If the force stops moving, it was, by definition, not irrestistable.
-
snare&racket
my best guess....an infinite and non progressive meeting of forces i.e. no progress, a bit like pondering the question.
-
prologos
but if the force sets up an oscillation, making waves, harmonic action can greatly increase the force's result.
making it inecitable, even pleasurable.
pulsations, reverberations that might later show up indirectly in some antarctic observatories.
think of the jackhammer.
-
Island Man
Viviane: Unfortunately, no. If the force stops moving, it was, by definition, not irrestistable.
The force doesn't stop moving. It passes through the immovable object. The immovable object, beng immovable, does not absorb any of the force but perfectly conducts the force from one side to the other.
-
prologos
what would make an object unmovable?
-
atrapado
This question reminds if God is almighty can he create a stone large enough he cannot lift. As people have mention earlier our rules of logic only allow for one to exist. However if you insist on having them both why not expand our logic. Just like the square root of (-1) is no longer a real value and we created imaginary values. Why not expand the state of an object. So now you'll have 3 states: moving, not moving, new state(something that is moving and not moving at the same time).
I know it looks contradictory but is basically saying when an immovable object and the irresistible force colide the state of the object is no longer moving or resting is some state that satisfies both.
Light has properties of both particles and waves which is it :).
-
-
prologos
atrapado, such an object would have to be also of infinte in size, nothing else could exist outside it. its creation would have consumed an infinte amount or ALL energy.
No attempt could be made to move, lift it.
'Lifting' of course implies the existence of a another mass, the attractor. which can not exist beside such an entity.