Question:
i was asked, what happens if an unstoppable force hits an unmovable object?
sherieilyn
2008-07-17 08:20:48 UTC
the answer given was the unstoppable force would bounce off the unmoveable object.
the only unstoppable force i could think of was love and i couln't think of anything unmoveable, so my guess was they would join. (maybe creating circular motion if by unmoveable they meant back and forth,...,)
why was the answer given better? my other question is doesn't something have to stop to change direction. simple explanation appreciated.
Nineteen answers:
needhelpnow
2008-07-17 08:26:08 UTC
the force will pass through the object, without moving the object. they will pass each other, like ghosts.
shane m
2008-07-17 08:37:03 UTC
We did this subject in my dynamics class. Your kinda right, because they do "join" for a split second. This joining is where the velocity is equal to zero, so you are also right there. In order for an object to change direction the velocity must decrease to zero, it just MUST happen. For the unstoppable object to "stop" the unmovable object absorbs some of the energy from the moving object. This is where the objects "join". Then when the unmovable object cant absorb any more energy, the moving object changes direction and goes the opposite direction.

don't know if this helps you
elbus36
2008-07-17 08:27:03 UTC
In the realm of physics the unstoppable force would change direction, not necessarily stopping.



Newton's law states that energy is neither lost or gained it is simply transferred. So following Newtons law the unstoppable force doesnt lose any energy it is simply transferred into a different direction.



If you jump do you stop? No you simply shift your weight to your feet and release the pressure in the opposite direction. The unstoppable force would not stop it would simply take time to transfer energy from one direction into the other.



May i get 10 points for this?
Daisy
2008-07-17 08:26:51 UTC
there is no unstopable force there's only two circumstances to that question.



1. if force> object

The object will be forces to moved by the force.



2. If force
the object will not move, but the force trying to cause it to move will start to move in the exact opposite direction using the same force.
pecier
2008-07-17 08:26:56 UTC
Some devotions are immovable. Hehe.



Try solving it in Newtonian momentum theory. An immovable object would be an object of infinite mass, and unstoppable force would be that of infinite momentum. I intuit that the force would indeed "bounce", with its direction reversed while its unstoppability remains the same. More able men or women can prove this more satisfactorily.
Ken B
2008-07-17 08:29:03 UTC
If the two objects are really "unstoppable" and "immovable", then the answer must be that they pass through each other. The unstoppable object isn't stopped, and the immovable object hasn't moved.



Of course, I think it's really just a "thought experiment", as there are no such things as "unstoppable" and "immovable".
SAREK
2008-07-17 08:51:22 UTC
The immovable object will apply an equable but opposite force on the force and balance it. There will be no bulk motion of the body, only some deflection however small.
freethenorm
2008-07-17 08:35:22 UTC
Your mixing emotions and physics. In physics if two objects carry the same density and mass then the moving objects redirects its momentum. With emotions they are similar in the fashion of one person loving another and the other not wanting the Love. The love is still moving it just changes its emotions and different feelings arise rather then what would have occurred.
anonymous
2008-07-17 08:23:27 UTC
The unstoppable force stops, the immovable object moves.
anonymous
2008-07-17 08:33:10 UTC
There is no such thing as either an unstoppable force or an unmovable object.
morganite
2008-07-17 08:35:10 UTC
they would never join unless the unmovable object is strong enough to hold the unstoppable force. don't take it seriously.
tedman
2016-10-06 08:20:42 UTC
the consequence turns right into a question that could desire to in basic terms be asked by utilising somebody devoid of expertise of first-order predicate good judgment. The existence of one negates the potential for the existence of the different. particularly information that demands somewhat bit theory. somewhat correct to the meaning of 'unique-or'. Doug
tvsinesperanto
2008-07-17 08:32:57 UTC
@ those people who said that the object would reverse direction...



But if it reverses direction, isn't there a moment, no matter how brief, that the object is, in fact, stopped?



I notice that elbus36 didn't say that the object would reverse direction, just that it would change. I like that answer. I think he should get the points.
Forrest
2008-07-17 08:25:31 UTC
the force would hit the unmovable object and cause catastrophic failure?
eddie
2008-07-17 08:27:36 UTC
One big wrack

only if it goes the exact opposite direction
anonymous
2008-07-17 08:23:40 UTC
When 2 hearts beat as one, probably disaster
anonymous
2008-07-17 08:25:12 UTC
Can't have two world champions. One of them would have to bow.







don't know which though.....
andy m
2008-07-17 08:23:24 UTC
That's a dumb question. Glad I never got asked that at school.
anonymous
2008-07-17 08:24:20 UTC
they would obliterate each other


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...