What happens?

[JabbaPapa]

The indestructible force passes through the object without moving it.

In the Real World, things like cosmic rays do this all the time : they just bore a sub-atomic tunnel through the object, planet Earth for instance, that nearly instantly closes up behind them during their passage.

Sorry to be so boring.

[xi0n]

good answer JabbaPapa - not the 1 im looking 4 - but makes sence

[bill32466]

The indestructible force would deflect, or reverse direction, off of the immovable object.

[xi0n]

nope....

ill answer 2morro nightg AEST

[xi0n]

No one seems to be answering so ill give it to you.

We know that there is an irresistable force out there. To restate this fact, for a force to be "irresistable", it must be moving with an "infinite" amount of force. For the sake of argument, this infinite amount of force is moving in a "positive" direction. To boil it down, then, we have

Irresistable force = +(infinity)


Of course, I can't type the infinite symbol, so the above will do.


Now, let us examine the immovable object. By Newton's Laws, "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." By definition, then, an immovable object must, via Newton's Law, be able to withstand an infinite amount of force, and, by necessity, must be able to impart an equal and opposite force to withstand it. Because it is opposite, the force, then, is infinite...but negative, since it's in the opposite direction. Thus,


Immovable object = -(infinity)


Now we're ready to resolve the problem. Recall your vector math and physics. A resulting force is the sum of two forces...in this case, the irresistable force and the immovable object. This makes it adding a positive infinite force to a negative infinite force. Resolving, we get the following:

+(infinity) + -(infinity) or (infinity)-(infinity)

= 0

The result is no force at all. The irresistable force has been stopped cold in its tracks by the immovable object....and, in fact, some of that force might have transferred over to the object (by a formula that I can't recall at the moment). But that, in a nutshell, is your answer.

Of course, some will still argue that the irresistable force did not stop since, by definition, it's irresistable, but the math don't lie.

[JabbaPapa]

An immovable object is impossible in Newtonian mechanics, but let's not quibble ...

Your equation works if, and only if, the immovable object is moving at the same speed as the irresistable force and in the exactly opposite direction, ; given that the object is stated to be at rest, speed = 0, it means that the speed of the irresistable force is also equal to 0 (-0 = 0), and therefore constantly and permanently occupies the same area of space as the object in question.

Conclusion : yes, the solution works, provided the immovable object and the irresistible force are one and the same thing.

Of course this raises some interesting questions about the philosophy of physics, so all in all I quite like your idea ...

[xi0n]

they are both invisable making it infinity

[drumz0rz]

Well when you put it that way the force should stop, if you take it out of math for a sec and put it reality, the force should however get abosrbed the the object and so the object doesn't move however the force is unstoppable so the force should never stop meaning there would be an infinate amount of force always hitting the object and the object would always be able to absorb the force and never move.

[Weaver]

There is a lot of butchered high school physics floating around this thread. First off, a few things to clear up, hopefully these are obvious.

There is no such thing as an immovable object. In order for an object to refuse to move (accelerate) in a vaccuum (I am assumming vaccuum) without friction (throw that in as well for good measure) it will have to have an infinite mass.

As you will recall F = m * a . For Force > 0 && a == 0, m == [Infinity].

In layman's terms, if the object is at constant velocity [rest], in a vaccuum, ignoring friction (static and kinetic friction would change the problem slightly), then even the smallest F would accelerate the object, thus "moving" it. In order to combat even the smallest F from accelerating the object, the mass must be infinite.

The only way for an object with mass to have infinite mass is be moving at the speed of light ( ~ 3 x 10e8 meters/second ) at which point the object's dimension parallel to its velocity vector shrinks to zero. The only way for an object with mass to move at the speed of light in the first place is to be pushed by an "unstoppable" or "infinite" force.

The argument is entirely circular. One entity cannot exist without the other. I could go on, but if you are serious about proving any of this thread wrong or right, I highly recommend you take or read an introductory college level physics course/book.

-Weaver

EDIT: Speed of light correction.

[b_a88]

The energy has to go some were because it can not be destroyed.
When the force hits the inmovable object the force could do one of two things or some were in between. Because the force is energy and energy can not be destroyed the object will push back and reflect the force back in another direction or the force push back some of the material in the object and absorb the energy by having moved the material and the material turning that energy into a different form of energy in some way like sound, light, heat or wind, if there is air.

For the example in the above. If a bouncy ball is dropped, irresistable force, and hits pavement, inmovable object, the energy from the ball will be pushed to the pavement and the pavement will push back the ball causing the ball to bounce back up. If a bouncy ball is dropped, irresistable force, and hits a soft pillow, inmovable object, the energy from the ball will be absorbed into the pillow by pushing back the material in the pillow and spreading the energy all through the pillow.

That's how I see it.