Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Poll [23 votes]: which would win
  • Poll [23 votes]: which would win
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3
Subject: A question to think about
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Poll: which would win  [closed]
unstopable force:  39%
(9 Votes)
unmoveable object :  30%
(7 Votes)
have no clue:  30%
(7 Votes)
Total Votes: 23

what if a unstopable force hit an unmoveable object what do you think would happen? which would win? whould they cancel each other out???

  • 08.16.2004 10:31 PM PDT

bah

Well, obviosly the thing behind the unstoppable force would move.

  • 08.16.2004 10:48 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

but its a unmovable object why is that ruled out

  • 08.16.2004 10:59 PM PDT

bah

Ah, but the force needs something to push off of. The thing it's pushing off of would move, since the unmovable object cannot.

  • 08.16.2004 11:01 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

ok then how bout this question. what if u were going the spee of light would u cast a shadow

  • 08.16.2004 11:04 PM PDT

bah

Yes you would. You just couldn't see it.

When you break the sound barrier, you make noise, you just can't hear it.

  • 08.16.2004 11:07 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

but u would be light itself

  • 08.16.2004 11:12 PM PDT

bah

No. There's no rule that states matter cannot travel the speed of light. It just can't accelerate up to that speed. Needless to say, hitting anything with mass at that speed would kill you.

  • 08.16.2004 11:15 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

back to the unstopable force why would the unmovable object not be able to stop the force

  • 08.16.2004 11:21 PM PDT

bah

No, the unmovable object stays put. But the force has to come from somewhere. It can't just appear out of midair, there has to be something else there causing this force. Whatever that thing is, would get pushed back via action/reaction.

Now, make that two unmovable objects with a force in between them, and it gets interesting.

  • 08.16.2004 11:29 PM PDT

Add the email above to your MSN to contact me with emergencies on the forum.

FOR CARNAGE, APPLY WITHIN
Marathon, Myth, and MORE (Under construction)

NO U! A Webcomic.
Mob Of Angry Peasants Chat

It's been worded wrong, for it to truly be a conundrum, it should be worded:

If an irresistable force meets with an immovable object, what happens?

Rip Saw is correct, an unstoppable force would simply change direction, it doesn't actually have to stop, but an irresistable force will only continue upon it's path. Therin lies the unanswerable question.

  • 08.16.2004 11:38 PM PDT

bah

Well, technically a force is a vector, so by definition to change its direction would make it not unstoppable, at least not in that direction. I will concede to the idea of an unstoppable force and object, but i will not concede forces coming out of nowhere. Now, if two unstoppable objects met, they'd either stop, or cause the universe to explode. or maybe one would slip into a fourth dimention and simply skip over the other one.

  • 08.16.2004 11:43 PM PDT

Add the email above to your MSN to contact me with emergencies on the forum.

FOR CARNAGE, APPLY WITHIN
Marathon, Myth, and MORE (Under construction)

NO U! A Webcomic.
Mob Of Angry Peasants Chat

On the light question, it would depend on how you are moving in relationship to the light source. If you are parallel with it and moving in the same direction, then no. Any other way and yes, you would, though it would likely be gone faster than anything could record it.

But if you are moving parallel and at the speed of light towards something that would even accept the shadow, you'd be a Neptune sized crater before it was even an issue.

  • 08.16.2004 11:44 PM PDT

Add the email above to your MSN to contact me with emergencies on the forum.

FOR CARNAGE, APPLY WITHIN
Marathon, Myth, and MORE (Under construction)

NO U! A Webcomic.
Mob Of Angry Peasants Chat

Posted by: The Rip Saw
Well, technically a force is a vector, so by definition to change its direction would make it not unstoppable, at least not in that direction. I will concede to the idea of an unstoppable force and object, but i will not concede forces coming out of nowhere. Now, if two unstoppable objects met, they'd either stop, or cause the universe to explode. or maybe one would slip into a fourth dimention and simply skip over the other one.


You do concede an inertial effect of force? The force doesn't have to have anything currently affecting it, if it was still working on the initial effect of the initiating factor - which by definition, is another force... Think about it. You have to have force to move force, therefore force can and has to exist without outside interference, force is simply acted upon, not created.

  • 08.16.2004 11:49 PM PDT

bah

Force must be exerted by something. Usually that something comes from something else's inertia. It can also come from chemical reactions. Inertia is not a force. Newton's 1st law states:Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.That means it can be at rest or moving. It has no forces acting on it, but it does have energy. When it collides with something, Newton's 2nd law comes into effect:The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma.The objects will exchange inertias when they collide. The end result uses Newton's 3rd law:For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.If I push you, you're pushing back. There has to be something else to act on a force. Force is not a physical thing, but rather a word we use to describe how matter interacts with matter.

  • 08.16.2004 11:59 PM PDT

Add the email above to your MSN to contact me with emergencies on the forum.

FOR CARNAGE, APPLY WITHIN
Marathon, Myth, and MORE (Under construction)

NO U! A Webcomic.
Mob Of Angry Peasants Chat

I didn't say inertia was a force -- You are correct - it is not a force - it is an effect of force.\

It has no forces acting on it, but it does have energy.

Energy is a state of force. Even if there isn't another force acting on it, it still has potential force stored in the form of energy.

There has to be something else to act on a force. Force is not a physical thing, but rather a word we use to describe how matter interacts with matter.

You'll have to forgive me, as it's 3:00 am and I have no handy reference besides the internet, and I'm got gonna search it now, but I have a small problem with the first line of what I have quoted here.
Did you mean there is no force until something touches something?
This unwinds like a Mandelbrot set, at the end, is your lack of force, if something was to act upon it, that would be a force, which also couldn't exist without another force, which also couldn't exist without another force, which also -- Well I think you see the point.

Force indeed is not a tangible object, but it always exists, regardless of outside benefactor, the only thing that alters with force is it's inherent state with whatever it's inhabiting.

  • 08.17.2004 12:16 AM PDT
Subject: w00tz0rz
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Wow.

  • 08.17.2004 12:23 AM PDT
Subject: A question to think about

bah

Posted by: GameJunkieJim
Did you mean there is no force until something touches something?
This unwinds like a Mandelbrot set, at the end, is your lack of force, if something was to act upon it, that would be a force, which also couldn't exist without another force, which also couldn't exist without another force, which also -- Well I think you see the point.
What point? That there is a limited amount of energy in the universe and it can't just come about out of "thin air?" Amazing how some people do all their best thinking at 3 AM. You are exactly right. Everything that happens comes about by something else. If you could copy our universe exactly, the two universes would both mirror each other until time ran out. It has to do with knowing the quantum state of particles. Unfortunately, you can only know either the place of a particle, or its speed, never both, due to the Hinesburg uncertainty principle. Basically, there is only one way that time can unfold. There is no choice, it's an illusion. Yet time will unfold in the way we choose things. I choose to type this. Or did I? I'm typing it, and I want to type it, but that's all part of how my subatomic particles are lined up and reacting with other particles. I'm typing this because I was predestined to from the moment the universe started.

P.S. I loved all the Matrix movies.

[Edited on 8/17/2004 12:27:48 AM]

  • 08.17.2004 12:27 AM PDT
Subject: Indeed...

Add the email above to your MSN to contact me with emergencies on the forum.

FOR CARNAGE, APPLY WITHIN
Marathon, Myth, and MORE (Under construction)

NO U! A Webcomic.
Mob Of Angry Peasants Chat

Posted by: ParaplegicNinja
Wow.


LOL

  • 08.17.2004 12:29 AM PDT

bah

Posted by: GameJunkieJim
Posted by: ParaplegicNinja
Wow.


LOL
Yeah, the wheelchaired ninja is right. You took this conversation to the point where 5% of people could follow it, I took it to the point where maybe .05% could follow it. That has to do with the fact that what I said cannot be explained unless you know a lot about quantum physics or have a very perceptive brain and a good imagination.

  • 08.17.2004 12:35 AM PDT
Subject: A question to think about

Add the email above to your MSN to contact me with emergencies on the forum.

FOR CARNAGE, APPLY WITHIN
Marathon, Myth, and MORE (Under construction)

NO U! A Webcomic.
Mob Of Angry Peasants Chat

There's quite a bit of truth to that, but I feel that inside of our own respective location, that things are alterable to a point, people or animals or even amoeba, can alter their specific relative force. As to the effect elsewhere? Nil.
There is no choice, it's an illusion. Yet time will unfold in the way we choose things
I agree that the carbon copy universe would play out nearly exactly the same, in terms of stars positions, etc. But I think that we would be able to alter minute aspects. Nothing more than differences in political powers, religions, etc. They seem very big deals to most human beings, but are incredibly inconsequential in the grand scheme of the universe.

I read and reread that and it's not coming out right, so I believe I will trust in Mr. Saw to get the point of what I'm trying to convey. I don't believe we are preordained at times inception, as even weather patterns can illustrate, a kind of Chaos Theory works to affect our own personal energy. I responded to Rip Saw earlier which sparked a debate of sorts. Even though most of our arguments (with the exceotion of a few details) compliment more than detract the other.

It's better to ask simply, do you get mad at anything? Why? If we had no choice in life -- if we were 'predestined' to do things exactly the same way from the beginning of time (When was that by the way??) then we wouldn't have the emotional impulses to regret a decision.

  • 08.17.2004 12:46 AM PDT
Subject: Indeed...
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

wow i just wanted to think a little now u guys are going into newtons laws and stuff but if the force hit the object and ricocheted off of it for a split second the force had to stop right when it hit then technicaly it would be stopped

  • 08.17.2004 12:47 AM PDT
Subject: A question to think about
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: The Rip Saw
quote]Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.[/quote]That means it can be at rest or moving. It has no forces acting on it, but it does have energy.


Um, I've only taken physics up to Grade 11, but I thought that if an object was in a state of uniform motion, then there were forces acting upon it, they were just balanced, which resulted in zero acceleration/deceleration and therefore a state of uniform motion. Anyways, if an object is moving, then there must have been an unbalanced force to instigate the movement in the first place (I think, in the real world anyway). There are always forces, no matter how small, that are acting upon an object.

Sorry if you guys kind of covered this already, but you kinda lost me in those last couple of posts. Do you guys have degrees in physics or something? Holy monkey balls. That's some deep thinking.

  • 08.17.2004 12:56 AM PDT
Subject: Indeed...

bah

Well, although it is hard to believe, chaos theory is totally bunk when you look at quantum physics. There is always a reason sometihng happens, and there is absolutely no such thing as a random event on the subatomic level. If you could know the quantum state of every particle in the entire universe at one moment in time, you could predict how all of those particles would interact with each other forever. Everything we do is the result of your atoms reacting together in some way. And at a lower level, the atoms' basic particles, and their basic particles, etc...

Two perfectly copied universes would play out exactly the same for all of time, all the way down to what your 7,747,473rd great grandchild had for breakfast on the day before his big Bungie tournament.

  • 08.17.2004 12:57 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Ace__
wow i just wanted to think a little now u guys are going into newtons laws and stuff but if the force hit the object and ricocheted off of it for a split second the force had to stop right when it hit then technicaly it would be stopped


Here's a brain teaser for you. A flie is travelling down some train tracks at approximately 3 miles an hour. A train is coming down the tracks in the opposite direction at approximately 50 miles an hour (or however fast trains go). Now, of course, the flie hits the train, goes splat, and starts going in the opposite direction. Now, for an object to change directions like that, it has to momentarily come to a stop. So, we know the flie had to come to a complete stop when it hit the train. However, the train did not stop. Now, if the train didn't stop, then how did the fly stop because it was stuck to the front of the train? Explain.

I know the answer, I just want to see how smart you guys really are . . . jk

  • 08.17.2004 1:00 AM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3