For the thinkers out there...

[1st Gen]

http://www.scienceblog.com/light.html

Something to think about.

 

[FL_PR5]

to answer your question about if something hits an immovable object. such as your example of wind hitting a wall that is nuke proof.

 

[NVP5White]

If we are applying generally accepted laws of physics then we know there is no such thing as an immovable object or unstoppable object. However, if we are to create such objects in our physical world we would probably call the unstoppable object an object with a tremendous amount of energy in the form of mass or speed or both. However, this energy is really a quality of the individual molecular components, atoms, quarks, etc. The immovable object has no energy, including heat energy, and is of such massive size that no amount of energy could move it or even heat it. When these two objects meet there would be an immediate transfer of energy from one object to another. Thermodynamic laws explain that all energy is conserved and that generally, higher energy flows to lower energy until equilibrium is reached. This second part is only true for a closed thermodynamic system, but for the purposes of this discussion we can say that these two very large and very massive objects will conserve energy within this system.

So, when these two objects meet there will be a transfer of energy from the moving object to the immovable object until equilibrium is reached. I believe the majority of the energy will turn to heat energy from the friction of the impact. Depending on the molecular construct of the two bodies, this heat could provide activation energy of secondary and/or tertiary reactions.

The end result, the "answer" can not be know or even predicted without additional data about the objects and the physical world in which they exist.

Maybe someone with a Physics degree could help fill in the gaps in my application of thermodynamic laws. I only have a BS in Marketing...

 

[orphman]

As per the unstoppable force meeting an unmovable object, 'unstoppable' does not mean 'undeflectable'. My guess would be the force would be reflected by the unstoppable object, like light hitting a mirror.

yea dude.. im leaning in that direction as well... thanks for your insight

 

[orphman]

#1----Your computer screen and everything you perceive around you is, in terms of physics and pysiological science, the PAST...something that has happened already and is being broadcast to your sensory uptake system via light waves, sound waves, etc....and then is processed by the brain through nero-electrical signals....So everything that is, has already been....

#2----Black Hole trumps all in terms of walls, light, etc...the immense gravitational field it creates breaks all matter...even lightwaves into subatomic particles...

#3----And you cannot control the present, cause the wheels are already in motion and it already happened...You can, however, alter the future...

#4----An object traveling at light speed has infinite mass and infinite gravity...So nothing could exist to emit light...but, theoretically if it was just under the speed of light and you emitted something to a level faster than light......theoretically the emitted particles would be moving back in time..(boom05)

Dude.. you summed it all up every thing we discussed.. and i agree on all points... this statement(s) is flawless well done!

 

[orphman]

If we are applying generally accepted laws of physics then we know there is no such thing as an immovable object or unstoppable object. However, if we are to create such objects in our physical world we would probably call the unstoppable object an object with a tremendous amount of energy in the form of mass or speed or both. However, this energy is really a quality of the individual molecular components, atoms, quarks, etc. The immovable object has no energy, including heat energy, and is of such massive size that no amount of energy could move it or even heat it. When these two objects meet there would be an immediate transfer of energy from one object to another. Thermodynamic laws explain that all energy is conserved and that generally, higher energy flows to lower energy until equilibrium is reached. This second part is only true for a closed thermodynamic system, but for the purposes of this discussion we can say that these two very large and very massive objects will conserve energy within this system.

So, when these two objects meet there will be a transfer of energy from the moving object to the immovable object until equilibrium is reached. I believe the majority of the energy will turn to heat energy from the friction of the impact. Depending on the molecular construct of the two bodies, this heat could provide activation energy of secondary and/or tertiary reactions.

The end result, the "answer" can not be know or even predicted without additional data about the objects and the physical world in which they exist.

Maybe someone with a Physics degree could help fill in the gaps in my application of thermodynamic laws. I only have a BS in Marketing...

One thing you are missing here... as well as others so.. dont think im being a prick about this... but the question is... an unstopable FORCE... meets an imoveable OBJECT... forces i.e gravity is diffrent than an object which is has mass. gravity has no mass... it is a force... this is not about two mass objects...

 

[GNsPR5]

Dude

 

[jersey_emt]

One thing you are missing here... as well as others so.. dont think im being a prick about this... but the question is... an unstopable FORCE... meets an imoveable OBJECT... forces i.e gravity is diffrent than an object which is has mass. gravity has no mass... it is a force... this is not about two mass objects...

Is light a force or an object?

It can act as both a force (wave) and an object (photon).

 

[orphman]

Is light a force or an object?

It can act as both a force (wave) and an object (photon).

if you read the whole thread you will see while we got to the light discussion... so not so much focus on light... jsut any force...

it is any... " unstopable force" meets any "immvoable" object" so... anyforce you can come up with that is " therorectialy" unstopable.. and "theorectialy" imobile object.....

 

[ProtoType5]

I believe some of the most unstoppable praticles/force/wave are the gamma waves emitted from solar flares, and are most concentrated and powerful when emitted from the collapse of a black hole. These are not "unstoppable" but can penetrate most materials without any problems....

 

[orphman]

I believe some of the most unstoppable praticles/force/wave are the gamma waves emitted from solar flares, and are most concentrated and powerful when emitted from the collapse of a black hole. These are not "unstoppable" but can penetrate most materials without any problems....

i would agree... this question is meerly specualtion... but would you net assert that those gamma waves would then go through what ever "im moveable object" or as otherwise speculated... be "deflected" or re-directed...

 

[Siccnes]

well, if we're talking about an unstoppable wave, it would either bounce back or reverberate throughout the immoveable object until it was dissapated, but since it's unstoppable, it would probably just pass through it.

 

[orphman]

well, if we're talking about an unstoppable wave, it would either bounce back or reverberate throughout the immoveable object until it was dissapated, but since it's unstoppable, it would probably just pass through it.

i tend to agree!

 

[jred321]

it's the end of the world as we know it. and i feel fine


what does the edge of the universe look like?
what if something were able to travel faster than the speed of light, would it hit you before you could see it?
what is "light"?

 

[B1GHAM]

it's the end of the world as we know it. and i feel fine


what does the edge of the universe look like?
what if something were able to travel faster than the speed of light, would it hit you before you could see it?
what is "light"?

1) A question Ive ALWAYS HAD.
2) yes. And to dive deeper, if an object traveling faster than the speed of light stopped infront of you, by the time you actually see the object, you would infact be seeing the past. and by past, I mean a further past that the current "past" we already view on a day to day basis (the one that could be considered the "present")
3) in what way?

 

[jred321]

3) in what way?

does it have mass? what is it made of? what makes up the waves that i'm interpretting as reflection of light?

 

[ProtoType5]

i would agree... this question is meerly specualtion... but would you net assert that those gamma waves would then go through what ever "im moveable object" or as otherwise speculated... be "deflected" or re-directed...

The would be altered, but not stopped by an immovable object...Perhaps if you lined the waves up and projected at one another, they would destroy each other, but that would merely take the particles and scatter them like an explosion...all energy is constant, it would only be re-directed...in another direction, or another form of energy.

 

[Rickman]

without reading everyone else's answers...

Even if a force "unstoppable" doesn't mean it can't be deflected. The unstoppable force would deflect and try to go around the immovable object... think of a large boulder in a river.

Your question does not have a prevision that the immovable object has a infinite surface area... in which case (depending on the angle of approach) the unstoppable force would still deflect and travel along the surface of the immovable object or directly back along the course from which it came..

 

[FL_PR5]

to back up rickman, i believe it's called the cocoon affect (his example of a boulder in a river). the water would move around it and then continue on with its path. but the space between the builder and the water, where the water can't touch the boulder would be known as a safe zone or "cocoon", just some more input. (boom03)

 

[NVP5White]

One thing you are missing here... as well as others so.. dont think im being a prick about this... but the question is... an unstopable FORCE... meets an imoveable OBJECT... forces i.e gravity is diffrent than an object which is has mass. gravity has no mass... it is a force... this is not about two mass objects...

"force" is a poor choice of words and not what the OP or the guy who originally thought of this question had in mind, IMO. See force: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force

A force is not a thing, not an object, has no mass. It does not exist in the physical world. So, instead, I applied the properties of a force to something that does exist in the physical world.

Or, if this is really a philosophical question about non-real objects then I think the only answer can be "much debate by people with too much time on their hands."

Maybe someone else can provide some physics-centric feedback to my post found here: http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3180054&postcount=43