This damn quote is driving me crazy

[Kiumaru]

Lucky~9~Lives

It does, actually. This is because of frames-of-reference - in a frame-of-reference where the immovable force has a velocity of zero after the change of direction, it will have a non-zero velocity before the change of direction, hence it will have been stopped (it's velocity will have gone to zero).

Ah, okay. I just realized that shortly after posting. Of course, I think it would simply be easier to understand if the term "irresistible" force is used rather than unstoppable since that, I believe, is the easier of the two different names for the paradox.

Wikipedia

An example of this paradox in non-western thought can be found in the origin of the Chinese word for paradox (Chinese: 矛盾; pinyin: máodùn; literally "Spear-Shield" ). This term originates from a story (see the Kanbun example) in the 3rd century BC philosophical book Han Feizi.[1] In the story, a man was trying to sell a spear and a shield. When asked how good his spear was, he said that his spear could pierce any shield. Then, when asked how good his shield was, he said that it could defend from all spear attacks. Then one person asked him what would happen if he were to take his spear to strike his shield; the seller could not answer. This led to the idiom of "zìxīang máodùn" (自相矛盾), or "self-contradictory."

Ooh, Chinese wisdom in the same vain. Fun fun. Perhaps the shield and the spear would both break. =X Of course, that would mean that the spear won, I guess and in the other way (both remaining intact), the shield would win.

[I got bored one day]

Repellant

Simple, really. It passes through, on the atomic or sub-atomic level.

Which can't happen if the immovable object is really immovable. It's frozen on that level and all underneath.

[Kiumaru]

Repellant

Simple, really. It passes through, on the atomic or sub-atomic level.

Quantum physics?

[Lucky~9~Lives]

Loshi Deneb

Lucky~9~Lives

Kiumaru

Just because it can't be stopped doesn't mean it can't change direction.

It does, actually. This is because of frames-of-reference - in a frame-of-reference where the immovable force has a velocity of zero after the change of direction, it will have a non-zero velocity before the change of direction, hence it will have been stopped (it's velocity will have gone to zero).

Explain why the molecules of the force cannot maintain a constant motion? via occupying other locations once connecting with the immovable object which are not occupied BY the object.

The only way it could achieve this without there being another frame-of-reference in which this new velocity is zero (i.e. without changing direction or speed) is by going into the object.

[pulchritudinous soup]

Technically, if this were to happen spontaneously, the result would be nothing.

Immovable is "hard to move" to the extreme.
Unstoppable is "hard to stop" to the extreme.

If they were to join, their extreme nature would be neutralized. It simply would not matter.

Since they become neutral and is, therefore, counter-parts of one another--The result would be either a complete stop or a continuous cycle between the two.

If we have the object, which will be represented by mrgreen in this instance, and then we have a force represented by arrow , what happens if they collide?

------------ arrow | mrgreen

Since arrow is unstoppable and mrgreen is immovable, how relevant are the two prefixes?
Let's cross them out.

arrow is Unstoppable.
mrgreen is Immovable.

That equates to:

What happens when a stoppable force meets a movable object?

They would cancel each other off. How do we neutralize the action? If the force moves the object, then it's proven that the force is stronger than the immovable object. That's not the case. So, technically, if they were to meet; the result is oblivious. When two contradictions meet, there is no result. It's simply a paradox and the inevitable result becomes unknown and undetermined. We cannot answer your question because it deems unanswerable. Logically, it makes no sense. It simply could not happen.

I don't know if that made sense... I'm a bit tipsy so excuse any odd correlations between the two subjects.

[MarlboroMurder]

This Is For The CO3O3 My People
We Got The Music That You Can't Stand Still To

Before You Get Too Involved There Guys.....
Are You Really Having A Hardcore Debate Over A question That Was Invented To confuse People?
It's Not Asking For an Answer. It's Asking For Thought.
That's All It's Supposed To Do Is Make You Think.
Now Carry On.
This Is Actually Somewhat Entertaining.

And Even If You Don't Dance, Don't Dance
I Gotta Get You Out And Take This Chance

Enie Menie Minie Mo
So Much Bitches At Our Shows
Different State A Different Ho
Which Of Them Should I Take Home?

Questing A Sign. A Special Sign.
I'll Be Super Picky.
But If you Pull It Off, You Get 20-25k. If You Try You'll Get 1-2k Depending On How Close It Was
To what I'm Lookin For. K?

[Kiumaru]

Lucky~9~Lives

Loshi Deneb

Lucky~9~Lives

Kiumaru

Just because it can't be stopped doesn't mean it can't change direction.

It does, actually. This is because of frames-of-reference - in a frame-of-reference where the immovable force has a velocity of zero after the change of direction, it will have a non-zero velocity before the change of direction, hence it will have been stopped (it's velocity will have gone to zero).

Explain why the molecules of the force cannot maintain a constant motion? via occupying other locations once connecting with the immovable object which are not occupied BY the object.

The only way it could achieve this without there being another frame-of-reference in which this new velocity is zero (i.e. without changing direction or speed) is by going into the object.

Would it be allowed that the unstoppable force could quantum tunnel through the immovable object?

[Xitemo]

pulchritudinous soup

Technically, if this were to happen spontaneously, the result would be nothing.

Immovable is "hard to move" to the extreme.
Unstoppable is "hard to stop" to the extreme.

If they were to join, their extreme nature would be neutralized. It simply would not matter.

Since they become neutral and is, therefore, counter-parts of one another--The result would be either a complete stop or a continuous cycle between the two.

If we have the object, which will be represented by mrgreen in this instance, and then we have a force represented by arrow , what happens if they collide?

------------ arrow | mrgreen

Since arrow is unstoppable and mrgreen is immovable, how relevant are the two prefixes?
Let's cross them out.

arrow is Unstoppable.
mrgreen is Immovable.

That equates to:

What happens when a stoppable force meets a movable object?

They would cancel each other off. How do we neutralize the action? If the force moves the object, then it's proven that the force is stronger than the immovable object. That's not the case. So, technically, if they were to meet; the result is oblivious. When two contradictions meet, there is no result. It's simply a paradox and the inevitable result becomes unknown and undetermined. We cannot answer your question because it deems unanswerable. Logically, it makes no sense. It simply could not happen.

I don't know if that made sense... I'm a bit tipsy so excuse any odd correlations between the two subjects.

I see your point. But what about the deflection/passing through suggestions?

[vampire hunter w]

It's logically impossible, so what? We argue over god's existence every day, never mind the fact that is also logically impossible.

[I got bored one day]

pulchritudinous soup

Technically, if this were to happen spontaneously, the result would be nothing.

True. This is actually the mathematically formulation of negative infinity plus positive infinity. Since infinity itself is not quantifiable neither is the effect, by which something occurs but nothing is generated.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

Kiumaru

Lucky~9~Lives

Loshi Deneb

Explain why the molecules of the force cannot maintain a constant motion? via occupying other locations once connecting with the immovable object which are not occupied BY the object.

The only way it could achieve this without there being another frame-of-reference in which this new velocity is zero (i.e. without changing direction or speed) is by going into the object.

Would it be allowed that the unstoppable force could quantum tunnel through the immovable object?

I guess, but then there's the question of renomalizing the frames of reference i.e. because of quantum fluctuations the force can be said to be swapping frames of reference and hence stopping all the time.
- xp

[Xitemo]

Death and Misery

pulchritudinous soup

Technically, if this were to happen spontaneously, the result would be nothing.

True. This is actually the mathematically formulation of negative infinity plus positive infinity. Since infinity itself is not quantifiable neither is the effect, by which something occurs but nothing is generated.

It sort of like trying to picture the Big Bang. First nothing, then soemthing. but something can't come from nothing, so...yeah.

[Xitemo]

vampire hunter w

It's logically impossible, so what? We argue over god's existence every day, never mind the fact that is also logically impossible.

At the risk of getting off subject, why is god impossible?

[I got bored one day]

Xitemo

Death and Misery

pulchritudinous soup

Technically, if this were to happen spontaneously, the result would be nothing.

True. This is actually the mathematically formulation of negative infinity plus positive infinity. Since infinity itself is not quantifiable neither is the effect, by which something occurs but nothing is generated.

It sort of like trying to picture the Big Bang. First nothing, then soemthing. but something can't come from nothing, so...yeah.

Well, no. That's a little different. That's a lot different actually.

[Kiumaru]

Xitemo

It sort of like trying to picture the Big Bang. First nothing, then soemthing. but something can't come from nothing, so...yeah.

This is extremely different... Especially since they aren't terms in which the existence of one would cancel out the existence of another. Also, how are we so sure that something cannot come from nothing?