Immovable vs Unstoppable

[Barbarossa]

What do you think about this matter? What would happen if an unstoppable and immovable object meet?

I just want to hear as many versions I can ,so please show me your brain power

 

[Dãrth1]

Something unstopabble can't be stopped, but something immovable can't be moved, the immovable object won't sotp the unstopabble, just prevent it from moving the immovable.

 

[BlacLord™]

The unstoppable object will just keep ramming into the unmoveable object but make no progress in going forward.

 

[Bastian]

It's a paradox, if something unstoppable exists then something immovable cannot exist. And the other way around.

 

[BlacLord™]

It's a paradox, if something unstoppable exists then something immovable cannot exist. And the other way around.

No.

The mechanisms of the moving object will still move.

 

[Barbarossa]

The unstoppable object will just keep ramming into the unmoveable object but make no progress in going forward.

But then the unstoppable object is stopped,and the pure essence of that object is that it can't be stoped,it must move

 

[BlacLord™]

But then the unstoppable object stoped,and it's not unstoppable anymore :/

It's not stopped though.

The mechanisms, essentially the movement in piece, continues to do so.

 

[-Punk-]

Hogan vs Andre.

 

[Bastian]

No.

The mechanisms of the moving object will still move.

That wasn't the point, only one can exist at a time or the adjectives used to describe these objects would be contradictory. Also known as the Irresistible force paradox.

 

[Itachi 4 life]

If they were both to exist(they can't) it would go like this:
They would phase through eachother, not interacting at all.
Since anything else would break the laws of physics
If something is unstoppable, it can't slow down or stop. If something is immovable it can't be moved.So they would have to go through eachother, kinda like Kamui

 

[Barbarossa]

It's not stopped though.

The mechanisms, essentially the movement in piece, continues to do so.

The mechanisms depends on the shape of the moving object so we can't be sure that it's moving in place.

 

[BlacLord™]

That wasn't the point, only one can exist at a time or the adjectives used to describe these objects would be contradictory. Also known as the Irresistible force paradox.

It is the point.

Paradoxes are no more than identifications of flaws within our methods of communication. That is to say, words themselves can't fully express meaning for the standard plane of thought. All paradoxes become nothing more than tripe when you move to a higher plane of thought.

The mechanisms depends on the shape of the moving object so we can't be sure that it's moving in place.

Nope.

The shape of the mechanism is irrelevant. Whether the mechanism is the object or in it, it still continues to circulate as it is unstoppable.

 

[CloyEscapade]

Deflection

 

[ColdSummer]

In my thinking, the immovable object wins in this sense. If it truly is immovable, and it comes in contact with an unstoppable object, the only possible outcome is that the unstoppable object would have to split in half upon contact with the immovable object so that it can pass through it. If the immovable object were split in half, however, it wouldn't truly be immovable because the act of splitting is a motion.

 

[Lightbringer]

I remember reading up on how they would just both pass through each other.

The other interpretation of mine would coincide with ewton's third law:

"When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body"

The immovable object would reflect the energy back at the unstoppable force which would just alter its trajectory without having to change its momentum.

 

[Uzumaki Macho]

[video=youtube;9eKc5kgPVrA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eKc5kgPVrA[/video]

 

[Jcub]

No.

The mechanisms of the moving object will still move.

This ^^^

This is why the Joker told batman this, then he summed it up "You and I will be doing this forever" (paraphrasing at best) because the two will keep clashing.

You have to look beyond the concept of physical things while considering this, you don't then it becomes a meaningless paradox with no real solution.

 

[kmrasengan]

Hogan vs Andre.

Exactly what I thought. High 5 sir.

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

In order for an unstoppable force to exist an immovable object cannot.

 

[Barbarossa]

[video=youtube;9eKc5kgPVrA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eKc5kgPVrA[/video]

I just have to mention that your sig is pretty cool,lol

In order for an unstoppable object to exist then an immovable object cannot.

And who can confirm that with 100% certainty. I see a lot of people saying that,but please explain it.