Answered Conundrum Next Conundrum
Who would win the battle of the "irresistible force" versus the "immovable object"? Or is it impossible for either to succeed?
Interesting Question? Yes (0) No (0)
RSS
Best Answer Chosen by Asker
Marked as Best!
September 30, 2009 06:46 PM
(1)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
When looked at in terms of the definition of the words, then if one exists the other cannot exist. But with simple wordplay it is impossible to know which of the two is possible and which is fictional.
When looked at from the point of view of physics, all forces are irresistible and no objects are immovable. The entire concept of an immovable object became obsolete when it was discovered that the Earth revolves around the Sun and the Sun revolves in the Galaxy etc.
The most irresistible force ever was the force of the Big Bang. No object that ever has or will exist has or can resist it.
When looked at from the point of view of physics, all forces are irresistible and no objects are immovable. The entire concept of an immovable object became obsolete when it was discovered that the Earth revolves around the Sun and the Sun revolves in the Galaxy etc.
The most irresistible force ever was the force of the Big Bang. No object that ever has or will exist has or can resist it.
| Asker's Rating: |
• Liked the answer, well done.
Helpful Answer?
(1)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
Other Answers (3)
September 30, 2009 06:22 PM
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Well if either failed it will not have lived up to its name. That being the case it is an impossible situation.
Ex if a force thought to be an irresistible force is put up against what is thought to be an immovable object and one wins, it will show that either the force was not irresistible or the object was not immovable.
Helpful Answer?
Ex if a force thought to be an irresistible force is put up against what is thought to be an immovable object and one wins, it will show that either the force was not irresistible or the object was not immovable.
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
September 30, 2009 08:30 PM
(1)
(1)
Permalink |
Report
Its quite simple, if they were truly to exist as they are defined, they would cancel each other out. All this can be calculated from Newton's laws of motion.
Newton's first law of motion states that; An object does not accelerate unless it is acted on by an unbalanced force.
Newton's second law of motion states that; The magnitude of the unbalanced force on an object equals the mass of the object multiplied by the magnitude of the acceleration of the object, the acceleration being in the same direction as the force. Or F = m x a
And Newton's third law of motion states that; For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words when a force is applied on a body, the body pushes back with a force of equal magnitude and opposite direction.
So if there is a force of ifinite magnitude, that meets a body with infinite mass, then the body will push back with an equally infinite force. Because we know the body, as stated in the question, cannot move (i.e. there is no acceleration), then the force acted upon the body must be equal to the body's mass. Or the other way round, because we know the force has infinite magnitude, then the body must have infinite mass to be immovable. But of course we know they are from the question.
a = F/m
a =infinite/infinite
a = 0
I think the part which confuses is using the words irrestible and immovable, but in physics they would be substituted with infinite. Also thinking about it too much doesn't help (as with alot of things in physics), they are things humans find it hard to comprehend and thats why we use laws like those above.
Helpful Answer?
Newton's first law of motion states that; An object does not accelerate unless it is acted on by an unbalanced force.
Newton's second law of motion states that; The magnitude of the unbalanced force on an object equals the mass of the object multiplied by the magnitude of the acceleration of the object, the acceleration being in the same direction as the force. Or F = m x a
And Newton's third law of motion states that; For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words when a force is applied on a body, the body pushes back with a force of equal magnitude and opposite direction.
So if there is a force of ifinite magnitude, that meets a body with infinite mass, then the body will push back with an equally infinite force. Because we know the body, as stated in the question, cannot move (i.e. there is no acceleration), then the force acted upon the body must be equal to the body's mass. Or the other way round, because we know the force has infinite magnitude, then the body must have infinite mass to be immovable. But of course we know they are from the question.
a = F/m
a =infinite/infinite
a = 0
I think the part which confuses is using the words irrestible and immovable, but in physics they would be substituted with infinite. Also thinking about it too much doesn't help (as with alot of things in physics), they are things humans find it hard to comprehend and thats why we use laws like those above.
(1)
(1)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
October 01, 2009 12:34 PM
You are wrong to equate action with force. Also, there is no such thing as infinite force or infinite mass. Also, mathmatically, infinity divided by infinity is not 0 but is an undefined and unknowable number.
Report
October 01, 2009 01:36 PM
In physics, and when related to motion, an action is a force. Mathematically you are right about infinity, but in this case because both the value for mass and force are equal they cancel each other out, you are not dividing them so much as ignoring them - both would still exist at their original values. There is no such thing as infinity, yes, like there is no such thing as an irrestible force or an immovable object, even so, what would theoretically happen can still be worked out through the beauty of physics.
Report
Answer this Question
View All General QuestionsAsk a Conundrum
Please visit these retailers to purchase Conundrum or find the wine at these fine restaurants:
-
1991 St Helena Hwy
-
699 St Helena Hwy
-
1115 Main St
-
1321 Main St
-
Aqui catando unos pulquitos... Caymus y belle glos clark... Ufff !! http://tweetphoto.com/35850115
3:16 p.m. July 30th, 2010 -
Gulp gulp gulp ;) (@ caymus vineyards) http://4sq.com/6740Ba
11:41 a.m. July 30th, 2010 -
Sandwich to go with my glass of Caymus #Cabernet #wine (@ Soda Canyon Store) http://4sq.com/8Ilnsl
11:23 a.m. July 30th, 2010 -
Get your palate ready for Sunday’s big event with our Saturday tasting featuring Caymus Vineyard (@caymuscabernet)! http://ow.ly/2iZHk
10:59 a.m. July 30th, 2010 -
Caymus Vineyards Cabernet Sauvignon http://bit.ly/98S6QR #web #fb #1 #2 #3 #4 #5
3:49 a.m. July 30th, 2010