Xitemo
I see your point. But what about the deflection/passing through suggestions?
I was considering deflection but it wouldn't work. If it deflects, the object hasn't moved. Therefore, the immovable object is theoretically stronger than the force. But, that isn't true therefore deflection is an inadequate answer.
While passing through did break my head a little, it really cannot be thoroughly explained. First, to suggest that it did pass through an inanimate object would consist of either destruction of, or the force is merely equivalent to light. I'm studying physics at the moment, and I would go into further detail about the behaviour behind light and reflection but I'm not a good candidate to explain. I don't even like physics but it's part of the curriculum of my compulsory science course.
Anyway, as explained within science, light goes "through" but it does not "move". For it to go through while respecting the "immovable" aspect of the object would be incomprehensible. You cannot destroy an object without moving it while going through an object would not consist of
moving it. Yes, those two are quite the twisters but even then, it's still illogical.