Immovable Object vs. Unstoppable Force - Which Wins?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 лис 2024
- The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny... also, Tshirts! www.dftba.com/m...
MinutePhysics is on Google+ - bit.ly/qzEwc6
And facebook - / minutephysics
And twitter - @minutephysics
Minute Physics provides an energetic and entertaining view of old and new problems in physics -- all in a minute!
Music by Nathaniel Schroeder / drschroeder
Thanks to Nima Doroud for contributions and to Perimeter Institute for support.
www.perimeterin...
Created by Henry Reich Created by Henry Reich
The "pass through each other" has for a long time been my go-to explanation for this one. Nice to see other people also thought about that solution.
Well, my solution was that one becomes an unstoppable force and the other becomes an immovable object.
Both wrong it will slip around the object and be shifted over in what ever direction it slipped when contact was made. It was explained by a renowned theoretical physicist.
I like this because realistically there is no way they could touch, even slipping around doesn't work because that implies that the unstoppable force was forced to move around, which implies that the immovable object is stronger.
Meanwhile if they pass through eachother then both remain true, the object wasn't moved, the force wasn't stopped, the only question is how they pass through eachother.
@@Woo.f32 if it slipped and changed direction it's not an immovable object
@@azaria2977 no I’m saying the unstoppable force slips. What you said was compelling though
Unstoppable force will pass thru the immovable object
That's physically impractical but it's already proven
GTA 5 train vs tree
You had to bring up gta trains didn't you?
Dark Comet haha
I was thinking about what would happen in GTA😆
Or train vs train
It actually is possible and for things to pass through each other.
2:06 I could watch this all day.
the sound is gold too
Same.
Someone gif this.
Yeah I know, I know
@@tenishiatanyani121 You mean GIFT this lol
"love is strong"
"but a falling boulder coming at u is stronger"
Terraria reference?
Ah yes I hate those damn rocks
@@themightycxzeriallord bro i lost 10 plat
A falling boulder coming at you may be strong but family is stronger
A man will sacrifice his life to push the one he loves out of the boulder's path. Love wins that fight.
Minute physics: Immovable object vs unstoppable force - which wins?
Physics: yes
Physics: maybe
Well yes, but actually no
U
Physics: theoretically
force will just bounce
Aha! We are talking about GTA5 trains.
train vs tree
Lordy Chen Lol i wrote the same comment😂
Lordy Chen funny thing is, the train would pass thru the tree standing on the railway
Musa G.
den its confirmed...
GTA 5 IS IMMOVABLE FORCE COLLISION SIMULATOR
IKR
Mountains and Love are the same,
Mind Blown.
Not just your mind but also your face it seems.
i just MOUNTAIN loves!
I mountain you
So remember to love your rocks
wanna go to love everest?
I like the way he still goes by the layman's definition while still explaining what it's supposed to mean scientifically
🎉
This whole video is "well, teeeeeeeeeechnically..."
Me in one sentence
@@user-ss2pj1rh7q
This ^ whole user is "Well, teeeeeeeeeechnically..."
This is sooo underated it actually hurts 😂😂👌
@Firstname Lastname thought so too. lol
Fixed it
YGT-25 [blank] wait how many emojis did it have before XD
Sci fi movies explaining this:
So the quantum quantum of the quantum mean quantum divided by quantum equals quantum quantum quantum quantum.
You forgot to reverse the polarity of the neutron flow.
Quantum mechanics
@@user-fw3wl6rv1v Quantum mechanics are those particles that can repair the vehicles of atoms. Yep, math checks out.
@@MonkeyJedi99 Movies be like "One person dies*
Main characters: I can revive him in the power of Quantum mechanics
*quantum*
"What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immoveable object? Well according to Germany, the answer is just to go around."
-valefisk.
Why are y'all liking this comment lmfao
*A R T I L L E R Y O N L Y*
This post made by going through Belgium gang
Best quotes ever
By like.....couldn’t this work if the unstoppable force just go around,it’s still not stopping,it’s just changing direction.
@@0Abraham16 yes it is true, just ask France
I can just imagine random present boxes floating around in space, colliding through planets and stars with nothing to stop it but itself
Sooooooo.... if an unstopable force meets an immovable object you should call the ghost busters
pretty much
Or ask for your money back because it was a shitty fight that ended in a tie which was bullshit fuck you ksi and jake paul
shrek onion this is a Wendy’s
@@biscuitalex829 Wendy's, roast me pls
Or in a different reference frame we could consider this as happening all the time. The two objects just need to not interact with the same forces. For example, gluons only interact with the strong force while W and Z bosons only interact with the weak force. To each of these, the other type is an immovable object that it can not change the momentum of, because it can not interact with it. Thus they effectively pass through each other as if the other wasn't there.
I think the universe would just get a blue screen of death.
Having Two Unacceleratable Objects Hit Each Other Crashes Paper Mario
^ its joke
Yea cuz universe runs on windows xp
ERR Logic Failure
Please revert to previous, working version, and re-boot
If this message appears again, contact the developer
XD
I knew it! They looked at me like I was insane, but I was right the whole time!
Congrat ! You're not insane !
Wait... I'm used to say "congrat ! You're insane"
Congrat ! You made me change my quote !
Well this isn't the only solution so you are insane just only slightly
@@shughes5778 what other solution
@@Qreator06 interesting. I wanna know bjt i dont wanna die and use impossible objects
YESS, I knew it too!!
“Ain’t no mountain high enough, to keep me from love you baby”
The Dutch mountain:
so thor's hammer is an unacelaratable object with infinite mass except for those who are worthy?
My boi asking real questions here
Ye it drops down to 0 weight
You are
Wrong
@@HM-hq4vf what do you mean man. 🙄
So.... Who wins?
Physics: *yesn't*
Non’t’n’t
Isn‘t it „yesn‘t“? Like didN‘T....
Noesothone
Logicn't
@@shmerox7683 of GB and 5AM
Why don't we try out this experiment?Glue a Nokia phone on a wall and just throw yet another Nokia phone at it?
But the wall isn't immovable.
+Daniel Anderson you missed the joke, fam
+SepтeracT Throw a gameboy at it. More fun that way. XD
+SepтeracT Let's take it another step, put the Nokias inside the LHC.
+SepтeracT
That's how you get holes in your walls.
Unmovable and unstoppable are basically the same thing if you think about it. To stay in place gotta move extremely fast since spacetime is always displacing you. So interaction is they repell eachother like magnets.
1:30 _"The only way to NOT be affected by a force, is to not interact with it at all."_
Epiphanic, _DUDE._
Already knew it, though.
- { Nay } -
Damn you anakin
how to beat the jedi
wow, flex on us, youre so smarttttt
Humble up a bit, you might find people will start to like you. Grade 7 physics.
So, if i stop believing in gravitation, i can float?
*“This is what happens when a Unstoppable Force, meets, an Immovable object. You truly are, incorruptible, aren’t you?”*
- Heath Ledger Joker
I would like this but it’s at 69 likes
N I C E
Failtheblank K it’s ok to like now
Elooong Musk thank you
Yes.
О да, ради этого комментария я и зашёл на это видео
This is equivalent to Saitama punching himself
Fistbumping himself*
@@memeswereablessingfromthel3942 Yeah but that would be two unstopabble forces. Santana punching himself is an unstoppable force (his fist) vs an immovable object (him)
@@GoAheadShaun Aha I see, I didin't know I was trying to correct and intellectual of your calibre. Forgive me sire
@@memeswereablessingfromthel3942 tis but a scratch
Saitama isn't immovable. Remember how Boros tossed him around before he got destroyed? He just can't be damaged but he can be moved
Summary:
1. They are literally the same thing from different perspectives
2. They just pass through each other
We could always find this out by cloning liam neeson and forcing him to fight himself.
Xanxei Chuck Norris did a Ted Nugent and went super right wing Christian theocrat. He's kind of fallen out of favour.
Yeah I mean it only happened 8 years ago, guys.
Before Chuck Norris goes to bed, he checks under his bed for Liam Neeson. Before Liam Neeson goes to bed, he checks under his bed for Lars Monsen.
But he doesn't find Lars Monsen. Lars Monsen never sleeps inside.
well why don't you get Chuck Norris to fight him self? that would be a lot better.
But you can't force an immovable object
WOW. Never thought that would be the result. The way u said with no nonsense included, foreshadowing the concept mathematically and explaining it, made the final statement sound like a well built up climax simply left me very impressed. It made me feel unexplainably satisfied.
I have no idea why, but this simple but well structured and beautiful video made my day.
I have to agree! This is a divinely elegant and simple answer proposing an end to forever gnarly paradoxes that purported to eternally tyrannize our lives…
Is this sarcasm?
@@mattoucas869 No, this is patrick.
I wasted a minute of my day to hear “you can’t, but if you could, you wouldn’t”
lmao
I’ve wasted three minutes and thirty five seconds.
Guys its not wasting time as long as your listeninig pysics
3 lol
i love how minute physics use "heart" to portray unstoppable force.
This guy just corrected the internet's grammar. Savage
Ben Cadet How?
Lmao hes wrong, by unstopabble force we mean an object moving at a spead that cannot be decreased and by immovable object we mean an object whos speed cannot be increased
Clash of Challenge
by that definition
the unstoppable object would move trough the immovable object not effecting it
as the immovable objects molecules don't move at all and the unstoppable objects molecules don't stop moving and would move around the immovable object's
thus he is correct anyway
it would seem to pass right through like barry allen or wally west running through a wall
Clash of Challenge lol u didnt Even watched the Video
Quiet Guy Josh we are talking about an unstoppable FORCE not object. An unstoppable force doesnt mean it is powerful, it just means it doesnt stop. It can be weak as hell but it just shouldnt stop so if an unstoppable force meets an immovable the object wouldnt move but the force wouldnt stop either
Now the real question is who would win: a moveable object or a stoppable force
that is basically real life. Imagine two legos, one stationary and the other moving towards it. And also a brick wall vs a baseball. Or a light post vs a moving car. It simply depends on the mass
oofed
It's the one with the higher mass or force.
Blu_Ni what if they were of equal mass or force
candy canes Then... I don't know. If you give an object that has the mass of 80 kg, and push it with exactly 80 kg of force.. I dunno.
Me. I would win.
To summarize, if unstoppable force meets unmovable object...
You have seen two ghosts.
ArgentumEmperio you can’t stop a ghost
@@alexwang982 if something's strange, in the neighborhood ...
@@iminsecurebut1215 GHOST BUSTERS
@@alexwang982 I think you skipped a bit
@@bumpjammy who you gonna call?!
I believe the hidden point of the lesson is all about the relationships between two persons who's internal energy is so high, and we all think they match each another perfectly - but in reality they will just "pass through each other" with no effect at all...
You mean like they won't have an influence on another?
If one person is dead-set on their way in one direction and another person refuses to be changed, they'll just pass each other by with no affects
Is that what you mean?
I'm pretty sure my grades are immovable from where they are :/
at straight A's?
@@wesleydecker5913 oof. They were. Now they won't move
More like big D’s and F’s
Mama's whip is unstoppable
Not funny
The real question is, what is inside of that box?
Schrodinger's Cat.
Mr. Shnoidz Was about to post the exact same thing
😂
another BOX
@@lucy3766 This dude is going places. ^
"There is no such thing as an immovable object. "
*Your mom is immovable and her hunger is unstoppable.*
OoooooOOOoooo
Yikesss 😂😂😂
Howard Wolowitz's mom?
@igrm photonoo7 he meant insatiable appetite
@Chaz Hagen Yo mama so fat, she is practically a singularity.
I think space itself would expand to accommodate. They would likely appear to us as if the one moving from our frame of reference would slow down as it approaches the one that is stationary from our perspective. They would still be traveling through space at the same speed, but space itself would expand. I’m no mathematician so this is just a guess based on things that happen already in our universe with near infinite potential for time such as black holes and how they say you would appear to an inertial observer as if you slow down as you approach the black hole event horizon infinitely until you are just simply redshifted out of view. Any mathematicians to weigh in on my answer? I’m really interested to know if the principals of infinite time dilation also apply to infinite inertia.
I don't think that's how that would work because these phenomena are the result of the extremely strong gravitational field of a black hole, which is not present in the scenario of an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object.
@@daviddow3705 good point, I am wondering as to whether something besides gravity could also cause it simply because both seem to be things attempting to remain stable despite going against normal logic. I could totally be wrong, but it’s an interesting though to me.
Nerd
Or test it by getting Chuck Norris to punch a Nokia.
The Nokia would fly around the earth and hit Chuck Norris in the back of the head and land on the ground and neither one would have taken any damage.
Caeden Regester Microsoft already punched Nokia and it wasn't pretty.
nice one xDD
Made my day XD
lol XD
Costumer: "I want to meet your manager"
Worker: "I am the manager"
jack costumer
what
@@footlover9416 asking for the manager is an unstoppable force and being the manager is the unmovable object
jack **** your **** not you
@@ahhshxshdnice2960 provably typo smartass, you dont have to correct him
nuh uh, superman told me that if an immovable object meets an unstoppable force "they surrender" you calling superman a liar?
Yes
In a way superman is right actually
That means that they don't fight each other, so the words "they surrender" might be a metaphor or symbol (I'm not great at english class, so forgive me if I didn't use those terms properly :P) for "trespass each other", and also they don't get altered/affected in any way by the other object, which means that they don't fight, which means that they surrender because they neither go offensive (affect the other) nor defensive (get affected). I'm bad at explaining myself sometimes sorry if I give a hard time to anyone reading
Super man said an "irresistible" object. An an answer to an unanswerable question-which he answers. The only answe is one is untrue
Can Doodle i
In my mind, I always thought they would disintegrate each other when they collided. The immovable object stays where it is while the incoming force disappears until both cease to exist, essentially canceling each other.
Yes! Although rather than disintegrate I think the infinite mass molecules/rigid pieces that hit eachother would freeze in time. At the moment of impact: Infinite mass->infinite negative acc/infinite speed->momentum won't allow->"speed of time" becomes infinitely small (m/s stays the same but a second will take infinitely long to pass). therefore effectively vanishing/disintegrating for the outside observer because it will never reach the next second in space-time even though its momentum stays exactly the same. In turn making the space availiable in the next moment in time for the next molecules/pieces to hit eachother and freeze in time etc.. until they both are completely frozen in time and gone for the outside observer, assuming they hit center and are mirror equals of eachother. Otherwise possibly letting the bigger infinite mass (what's left of it) to progress trough time and continue on with its momentum. Or pieces of both that didn't cross eachother.
Gandalf: YOU SHALL NOT PAAASSS
Skyrim: FUS RO DAH
Why did i have to see this as I'm playing skyrim xD
wuld NA KEST!
I think Skyrim is a pretty cool guy. Eh slays dragons and doesnt afraid of anything.
+desu38 Arby n the Chief reference?xD
Really made me laugh
Jetix the Average Otaku so what you're saying is that SKYRIM is the one who shouts Fus Roh Dah. Oh my god..
Hang on, movement is relative? Holy shit! That means I can move stuff with my mind! I have telekinesis! Suck it sceptics!
but you already had. it's called muscles
matthijs buise Pfft, who needs muscles when I can just make my drink magically come closer by approaching it... oh, wait.
thank you for making me lol, lol.
We get it, you don't understand the laws of physics and shit, no need to make yourself look like a dumbass any further.
***** I also get it, you don't understand the concept of jokes and shit, no need to make yourself look like a dumbass any further.
The best thing about this video is that it actually methodically and explicitly answers the question it poses. Many popular videos on this website that pose as "educational" ask questions (often shown in their title) then beat around the bush or slowly change topic and never answer the question. Thanks MinutePhysics, I'm mind-blown.
Daniel Muriungi Basically Vsauce--interesting but frustrating
Daniel Muriungi That's because MinutePhysics makes hypothetical questions. Other channels don't. They say: "there is no such thing as that" and they never make a hypothetical situation where the subject in question would exist. Other channels are 100% literal and leave no room for speculation, for what would happen if what you're discussing really existed.
Daniel Muriungi Well most of the questions posed are quite hypothetical. They're in the title more to open a discussion and get you thinking about things in general. In the video "Guns in Space" by Vsauce, people expect him to be talking about how guns work in space, space warfare, etc. But he doesn't. He actually starts talking about ways in which you could kill our sun, one of which being to pour a solar mass-worth of water on it. There is nowhere near that much water to be found in the observable universe and even if there was, how would anyone or anything be able to transport it to our sun?
Guns in space are touched on, some physics behind how bullets would act in space are explained, but guns really aren't the focus of the video, even though "Gun" is one of the three words in the title.
And as always, thanks for reading. 8)
***** Okay sure, but now how do you get it from there to our sun? How are you even going to survive the reaction caused by adding it's mass to the sun? You'd need to be some kind of omniscient being, or otherwise have an anomalous object that could shield you from the intense heat. It's still extremely theoretical.
***** I think you mean our solar system :P
I think what most people are REALLY thinking when they imagine this, because it's the closest physically possible phenomenon we have, is a REALLY BIG object being met by a REALLY BIG force, and just kind of imagining this force arms race, where any increase by one is met by an equal increase from the other, and get stuck at that iteration and wonder what happens at the end of it.
The real answer is : The immovable object will stay immovable, while the unstoppable object will get deflected. Still moving but in different direction. This answer is accurate bcos both statements remain true.
@@nightcoremaniac4534interesting!
@@nightcoremaniac4534smart
@@nightcoremaniac4534but then again it wouldn't be an unstoppable force since the unmovable object stopped it and made it go another direction
@@nightcoremaniac4534but the unstopable force would be stopped for a fraction of a fraction of a second before being deflected
Can someone just get a train going at 100 mph to run into a giant concrete wall?
+jgonz185 It has been done.
+jgonz185 Mythbusters.
Alucard Hellsing I belive he already knows neither a wall is immovable nor a train is unstopable, but I also think it would be interesting to watch regardless.
Alucard Hellsing Yeah well I am not arguing against it. Just wanted to point out what I said. Cause I toughed you didn't see it, my bad. Have a nice day sir.
+jgonz185 can they yes will it continue to go at 100moh after hitting it no
Reminds me of the new pokemon game. One legendary has a sword that can cut anything and the other legendary has a sheild that can defend anything!
That's what I was thinking and I was just like h o w ?
There might be a third legendary that explains everything
Tbh the games were blatant cash grabs.
FireCarf still a good gen 8
MooMooBoogs yeah, eternatos explained nothin 😂
I love this video because it's basically:
Viewer: I have a question
Video: OKAY let me explain to you why this question is bull shit
Viewer: oh, sorry I asked
Video: BUT I'm going to answer your ridiculous question anyway
Brianna Belle video: Oh wait no, I'm gonna give you an answer that doesn't answer your question
xkcd exactly does this in his "what if" articles.
The unstoppable force passes through the immovable object, so the force is not stopped and the object is not moved. Pretty good theory
This video has the most unsatisfying ending I have ever seen
i mean that’s what happens when you ask an impossible question, the laws of physics exist for a reason
default dan is right, this isnt a video game
Maybe for you, but I was gonna crap myself out of frustration if the video ended with the universe folding itself back into a singularity and starting over again. XD
hsing-yi huang people believe we are in a video game of sorts
@@hashimahmed2882 well what you gonna do when there's an unstoppable force against a unmoveable object
damn,that ending would make M. Night Shyamalan very proud
Who is that?
+Bryan Robinson it's called Google
+Jacqueline Chrisman No it isn't.
+Bryan Robinson A director. He directed The Last Airbender. I've never seen The Last Airbender, but I've seen a lot of nasty things about it, and I've been advised not to watch it.
+P0CK3TB00K You can watch sixth sense though
I think they'd just stop and collapse into one big Niki Minaj.
+Emyll Somar meet my left cheek, 'immovable force', and my right, 'unstoppable object'
Either that or my theory was (I’m no physician, my apologies) that if they were to collide in a realistic manner, they would atomize and pass through each other that way meaning there had to be an effect
For an object to atomize its atoms must accelerate.
Note that changing direction is acceleration.
*Physicist
What I always imagined is that it might be an unstoppable force but it's *direction* can be changed. In this case the objects would collide and would both go their merry way, like left/right or diagonally, or even backwards.
They either a: have the unstoppable object go to 0 speed before accelerating in another direction or b: part of the ubstoppable object goes through the immovable object as it turns at which point there would be no reason for them to go through each other completely without changing direction
I’m not sure but I think changing direction counts as changing velocity as velocity is a vector (both magnitude and direction) so changing direction changes velocity
@@penguintoast2471 also assuming the unstoppable force means each atom retains the same speed or energy level, the outside of a turn will go faster and inside slower
@@o_sch fantastic point
The main problem with that is that for the unstoppable object to change direction, technically it would have to stop and reorient if even for the briefest of moments. So it wouldn't be unstoppable
What happens when an irrefutable argument meets an unchangeable mind? I guess the answer, extrapolating from this video, is that it will slip right through it like photons through a window.
the irrefutable argument doesn't have to guarantee changing minds it could have proven evidence backing it up, that doesn't mean everyone will go for it. like we know for a fact that Michael Jackson is dead but someone out there will think otherwise
That's was kinda anticlimactic, I thought maybe the universe would split in half or something..
I was expecting the end of like, everything
I too wanted at least a huge explosion or something..
the solely existence of an object with infinite mass would result in the end of the universe, so the problem became not a physical, butt a logical one.
Chase Palmer That's vsauce
Hey Vsauce, Michael here.
I imagined when I was younger that an immovable object would stop in space, but seeing as everything moves around it, would appear to be moving. It would act like a wall in ocean currents, no matter its size.
Meanwhile an unstoppable object would mean it could never stop moving and could continuously increase its energy and speed up while never reaching zero. Which would have it moving with you in space and able to increase its potential energy from its conception.
So I looked at an immovable object as a universal scale object unaffected by relative, while unstoppable is determined by initial relative factors until it either surpasses relative or falls beneath it to reach a similar, but never the same energy loss as an immovable.
A pin in space time versus an object surfing its waves.
But I suppose that doesn't make a lot of sense. An unstoppable object can mean it never loses energy or speed as well.
Anyway, That's my ramble.
Omg here's a simple answer everyone wants. Gta 5 train and a ramp
You cannot love if you don't love.
sonic boom you cannot talk if your mouth is closed.
You cannot think if you don't have a brain.
You cannot live if you die
But you can state out the obvious while I won't get any likes.
Tautology? Also some people can talk with their mouths closed.
Wut
Zuriel Babida Is sign language considered talking? If it is then you can talk even if your mouth is closed.
Reden Carabeo it is
Thing 1: ahhhh!
Thing 2: ahhhh!
(Phase through each other)
People:cool! Now, where did we put the portal?
im confused is this supposed to be funny
i gess
I feel like this I supposed to be an xkcd.
I have no memory of writing this so even I’m confused
He actually answers with only logical explanations to a literally ancient question.
Are we all just gonna ignore that the unstoppable force is love? That's some deep stuff right there.
Rotten Redhead and the immovable object is a mountain so they’re quoting the phrase “love can move mountains”
@@dhakahealth5935 omg I didn't even know! That make is 10x better.
I ruined 69 likes😬😌
Love is unstoppable until you get a divorce
@@joachimtheboss5326 just before getting divorced
"Mommmm, gravity won't leave me alone!!"
“Quiet child, Im saving myself”
Am I the only one who read that in Candace's voice
Batman's Greatest Failure yes
The Smol Gay Cinnamon Roll I guess I have Phineas and Ferb on the brain ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@chaoticcar1052 me too but i didnt realize it was Candace until i read ur comment xd
You see Ivan,
If you become unstoppable force,
Other unstoppable force will pass through
You become invincible
Thx Jimmy 😂
*Any *thing* doesn't move at zero Kelvin, but if this force is *unstoppable* then, physics doesn't apply. So it keeps going, *and* the other object doesn't move* *win win*
The Train on GTA V is an immovable force
unstoppable actually
Hey you! I was gonna type that in the comments for easy likes
Marius Waag Østro I think it's an unstoppable object
No . I nuked it and it stopped
Immovable object = your reality
Unstoppable force = time
+Miceal wilson time it isn't a force. It's a dimension
Time isn't a force. It's a property of the universe. It's a dimension.
time stops for all things traveling at the speed of light
light isn't instant
it's almoooooooooooooooost stopped. if light speed was infinite, then time is stopped. because if time stops for light then every light in the universe should have reached anywhere they are headed to.
If WoW has taught me anything, it's that the Immovable Object has a high block chance.
+Derfoklishe Especially when hit with The Stoppable Force. #WoWInsideJoke
+Derfoklishe WoW! You're so funny.
It depends how you define the "unstoppable" in 'unstoppable force'.
Unstoppable can mean the force exist forever, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the point where the force is exerted is always moving. So the force can meet the immovable object and keep exerting a force, hence being "unstoppable" yes as long as the immovable object exerts an equal and opposite force, due to friction for example, it won't move...
So my answer is: we don't have enough information.
why did my heart beat faster when the two presents were moving towards eachother?
At first I was like... That's it??? But then I realized that a question that makes no sense can only have an answer that doesn't make sense.
Brian Joseph Márquez The answer makes sense. If two forces are unstoppable then logically the only result would they would continue to pass through each other.
Theo Starodubov Yes it does, this question isn't a lawful question because nothing in our universe has infinite energy which is required to make an object unstoppable.
So it becomes a logic question, thus, if two objects that are theoretically unstoppable they would pass through each other because that's the only interaction that continues to obey their law of "unstoppable". They wouldn't be destroyed because then they're not unstoppable and they wouldn't stop because then again they're not unstoppable.
So the answer to this question is the only logical one.
Theo Starodubov Or maybe you just can't comprehend because of your own stupidity...
Of course, it's the ignorant person's way of winning an argument ;)
TheAdampr I am being a dick, but that really doesn't make any sense. Its not guessing what is beyond universe or is there any aliens, its ignoring and breaking laws of physics. You might as well ask, what would happen to carbohydrate, if I would replace hydrogen with a pizza.
I love the way you represented the unstoppable force with a heart, meaning love
It's cute and true at the same time
If your love is unstoppable, we're the room for consent?
@@mrRambleGamble i don't get the message you're trying to tell me
of course consent is part of love, i just wanted to give appreciation to how the guy represented unstoppable force because i think it's good duh
@@RedStoneMatt Your original point is quickly confounded. It's poetry, which can be aesthetically pleasing, but it's logically unsound
@@mrRambleGamble uhhh what
@@mrRambleGamble Imagine needing consent
nine years later and this still blows my mind
All I can think about while watching was The Dark Knight in that one scene with joker
Same😂😂
I was like ooh batman! We are going there but then the video is like nope😂
@@teacupofwonder thats the only thing to think about in this case :)
What scene? My memory sucks
Physics: ruining creative exercises since the 16th century.
theCornyJoke essentially true
theCornyJoke to feed your need of satisfaction:
"They give up."
- Kal-El of Krypton
goo.gl/images/v8apZJ
You mean Creative People: idiotically ruining physics and thermodynamics since the 16th century.
Nithin Srivatsa How?
It's not like studying something in physics just magically makes it true.
that must be why the flash can run through walls
A. Guill. TV no watch the show. He vibrates at the frequency of the wall. Also he accelerates
I'm comics he vibrates through them. The only issue is not all objects are the same so it can take him time to get use to am object before completely passing through it.
A. Guill. TV walls are not unacceleratable
im guessing he commented this as a joke, but its obvious that alot of you dont get it
So to stop him you just need to make a wall out of two seperate materials? Or just slap some insulation foam in the middle (since he cant vibrate at two seperate frequencies simultaneously).
what I personally make of this problem is that if an infinite force pushes on an object with infinite mass, infinity/infinity=1, so both objects would experience some acceleration in opposite directions from eachother.
infinity/infinity is indeterminate
What about in a game where an entity never dies and there is another entity that always one shots his enemies. Who would Win?
The game would crash. Unless the developers has scripted this particular scenario.
I think the game will crash and your computer will explode
depends on the implementation. first you have to define what you mean by 'never dies' and 'one-shots'. if 'one-shots' just means 'deals enough damage to kill anything' or 'sets their HP to zero', all you have to do is disable the HP component. if 'one-shots' means "sets the target's 'life' state to 'dead'" then you need just remove the 'life' component entirely, so the entity which 'never dies' could never be 'alive' nor 'dead' in the first place. Thus, you'd have one entity that can never be killed (because the notion of it being alive or dead is nonsensical to begin with) and another entity that always one-shots his enemies (by either setting their HP to zero, dealing stupidly high damage, or setting their 'life' state to 'dead'), and when they met, neither would win -- either the shooter's gun would have no effect, or it wouldn't be able to target the enemy in the first place -- the target becomes invalid.
we
The one that always one shots his enemies would lose because he can still die and an enemy can still sneak up on him. Sure he always one shots his enemies, but he still can't shoot every enemy since he needs to see them first to shoot them. So the one that can't die would win.
The way I read it is that the paradox is inherently flawed. If in the universe there existed an immovable object, there could not possibly be an unstoppable force, since every possible force would be stopped by the Immovable Object. Likewise, if there was a truly unstoppable force, there could not be such a thing as an immovable object, because every object would be moved by the Unstoppable Force.
+Pastlife17 in my opinion it is a problem of terminology rather than physics
That's the whole paradox, obviously its impossible to have an infinite force, but what happened if? Possibilities don't stop the human mind to think about it happening.
PreMo The what-if doesn't matter, because it's literally impossible for them both to exist at once. It's like having an unbreakable metal and a bullet that can penetrate any metal.
+Pastlife17 I think you miss the whole point of "what-if"s.
Saying a hypothetical scenario can't happen is just refusing to answer, and it's your response that's completely meaningless, not the question.
Objects exert force and thus collide by emitting virtual photos. In the case of two objects of infinite mass, the virtual photos would have no effect on the objects and they could continue merrily through one another. As objects are generally made of atoms, which have a lot of space in and between, we wouldn't even have to have singularities necessarily.
The way he pulled out the definition on paper nearly killed me 😂😂😂
Thanks for giving an answer at the end.
An immovable object does not need to have infinite mass. It just needs to be totally non interactive. Such objects could exist, it would just be impossible to prove that it exists.
That is very true
a non intractable object must have 0 mass and all object with 0 mass must move at the speed of light. hence moving
what about the object having infinite frictIon?
Nothingness is an immovable object.
put something into the nothingness, like a rock, and BAM your nothingness just moved.
What if something was in between them?
Then it would break and her squeezed out at the sides as they pass through each other. Since this thing that's inbetween isn't unstoppable, it can't go through so I guess it has to get away somehow xD
FrosTxKyzer mmm pancakes
A black hole due to unstoppable compression. And also probably some Hawking radiation, I don’t know.
Depends on if the two objects are perfect cubes or not. If they form a cavity where they collide, then it compresses matter into a black hole. if not, it gets squeezed out. If it's a perfect cube, then some of it escapes while some gets stuck and build potential energy for some nanoseconds, and then gets shot out at great speeds as burning plasma because of the compression and the friction. Basically, a little bit of fusion.
that something would be destroyed
Simply mentioning the graviton along with the other force carrier particles seems a little odd to me. The particle still remains hypothetical, and until we have empirical evidence we shouldn’t attribute gravity to it.
Am smort
either that or they meet and the universe tries to divide by zero, throws an exception, and crashes
The difficulty with this problem is that we pretty much have to make assumptions about the nature of the immovable object and unstoppable force. In this video, we're assuming that they have these properties because their mass is infinite. Could it be the opposite too? I'm kind of thinking of a sort of massless photon-like particle that can't be absorbed or reflected but that just passes through everything.
So treating these objects like photons (where one is our intertial frame of reference), they'd interfere with each other (as waves do) but there would be no real collision. I guess the answer's the same, though - they pass through each other.
+Phlebas Photons can't collide?
Dave Galindez
I'm not a physicist, so my comment was based on some factoid that I picked up at some point. Generally speaking though, photons don't collide. After a bit of googling, though, I see that there are exceptions.
www.quora.com/Can-two-photons-collide
Keep in mind, these are rare events governed by quantum randomness.
+Phlebas OMG since I commented I've been googling this too :P
+Phlebas what about photonic molecules?
AWREBO productions From what I read on those (after learning of them for the first time by reading your comment), it seems like they can only be made under certain laboratory conditions and aren't typical of photon-photon interaction.
If it cant move just go through it, got it.
*If it can't move and nothing can stop me then pass through it, dig it ?
I raise the argument/theory that the know universe might already be inside a black hole and as a whole is an immovable object. The unstoppable force in this argument then is the expansion of the universe whether that be do to an unknown force on the outside causing the black hole we know as the universe to expand such as more matter being added or an internal force often theorized as dark matter. So in my theory these two forces interacting just causes the volume of the mass to expand.
In that theory I wonder if the black holes inside that big black hole would be actually the outside of the big black hole.
Problem is
1.the universe isnt a singularity
2. No proof
@@smartart6841 well you don't have proof the universe isn't a singularity either. It's all unfalsifiable
@@controlequebrado4455 i do though...
@@controlequebrado4455 if it was a singularity we would all be in 1 infinitely dense space and room between stuff wouldnt exist since a singularity is infinitely dense
The result is actually surprisingly *accurate in video games* to!
• _example_ •
>if a train moves(cannot be affected)
>>hits a static collision block(trees)
==result is either "train passess through the trees" 90% happened in most game i've played/seen.
or
== the train gets glitch or bug. and crash the game.
You get close to this concept in neutron stars.
The surface of a neutron star is so hard and dense that it makes a diamond look like the vacuum of outer space in comparison. It's so dense that a spoonful of it on Earth would weight loads of metric tons. You can only imagine how hard this material is, given its density. It's so hard that it's impossible to even imagine. Thus the surface of a neutron star is _almost_ an immovable object.
On the other hand we have the gravity on the surface of a neutron star. The gravity is so strong that it quite visibly bends light. Any object, or even particle, near the surface will be slammed by gravity onto the surface so hard that it will break into its constituent subatomic particles and fuse into neutrons. While this is of course not "infinite" force, it's so many orders of magnitude stronger than anything we know that it's difficult to even visualize.
Where these two things come into play is when a rotating neutron star slows down due to loss of energy.
Neutron stars typically rotate very fast (even thousands of revolutions per second). This speed of rotation is so fast, in fact, that neutron stars are not spherical but spheroids. They are just so slightly squeezed so that their equatorial diameter is slightly larger than their polar diameter.
When the rotation of a neutron star slows down over millions of years, the gravity will start acting more and more strongly on the surface, pushing it to become more spherical. But as said, the star is so incredibly dense that almost no amount of force would be able to do that.
When the star slows down enough, however, gravity becomes too strong for the surface to withstand, and it gives way, even if so slightly. What happens here is that the entire star rearranges in a slightly more spherical shape in a tiny fraction of a second. Because of the forces involved, and the size of the star, and the speed at which this happens, this event is so energetic that it sends an enormous flash of energy to outer space. The event is called a "starquake".
One thing that has more density, is a black hole. It is practically infinite density....well, not really "infinite" but that's the closest "number" we have to it....
Brendan Risney
If not "really infinite", then how much?
WarpRulez Depends on the size of the black hole. Say one the size of a pea, would have the same mass as Earth. That is a lot of density.
Brendan Risney
You have to be more specific about what you mean by "size of a black hole".
Usually what's meant by that expression is the size of the event horizon. However, the event horizon is not the surface of any actual object; it's just a region of spacetime with some peculiar characteristics. However, there's no matter at or even inside the the event horizon. It's just empty space.
The "density" of a black hole is often calculated as the average density of everything inside the event horizon (because from the outside it makes no practical difference). However, that doesn't mean there's any region within the event horizon that has that particular density. It's all just empty space (weirdly curved space, but empty nevertheless).
Since it's just empty space, you can't really talk about an "immovable object" when talking about the "surface" of the black hole (because the "surface" is just empty space; it's not an object at all).
The singularity at the center of the black hole is a different beast in itself. General relativity predicts that it has infinite density, but nobody is sure how it really goes (especially since GR doesn't take possible quantum effects into consideration).
And btw, there most probably are no pea-sized black holes. (If there are, they would most probably be primordial black holes. However, for black holes of that size to exist it would require for the Hawking radiation hypothesis to be false. Else they would just blow up rather rapidly.)
WarpRulez I know what an event horizon is, I've studied black holes for about 7 years now. And I was talking about the event horizon, what else would I mean? The accretion disk? (I think that's how you spell it, lol)
And infinite density would mean that everything in the universe would have to be in the black hole's singularity. That is obviously not true, as you and I exist.
And I know there aren't any pea sized black holes. That was just an example. As you said, they would have to be from when the universe just started. But are you sure about the exploding thing? It would have to be very unstable, like it just absorbed a huge amount of matter and spat it back out, destroying itself.
when an Immovable Object meet an Unstoppable Force : understandable have a great day
"Are you sure that you can move all this by yourself"
"Just watch"
"I LOVE YOU HOUSE"
My idea for this is a little bit different.
It would create a kugelblitz due to the infinite energy of the force transferring into an infinitely small reference point, in this case the unacceleratable object. The object would reflect the force in an imaginary number, thereby violating basic laws of physics and creating said reference point. If 2 of the objects were barreling into each other, they would crumple up into an infinitely dense sheet, a sheet singularity, if you will. This sheet will then collapse into a singularity because you can't make a sheet singularity for obvious reasons.
That is certainly an interesting idea. However, the formation of a singularity requires the presence of extremely strong gravitational fields, which are not present in the scenario of an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object. Therefore, it is not possible to apply the concept of a singularity to this.
If any of you guys play league of legends... You know malphite ult actually bypasses azir's wall.
How about Camille ult?
perfect example
I don't know if i wanted to live or die correct
I actually agree with the black hole part the most. The collision should create an infinite gravitational pull, either destroying the space time continuum, or creating it, depending on how you view it.
I think the moment you create something with infinite mass it becomes a black hole expanding at the speed of light without end its just incompatible with our universe
the presence of infinite mass in general equals entire universe gets slurped up
More like it will happen before the collision. So if an object of infinite mass exists, every other object in the universe will be attracted to it with infinite Force, even if it is infinite distance away.
@@bullymaguire3867exactly, which means the universe is the unstoppable and immovable force we are talking about 😮
@@tevinmkj No it does not
Chuck Norris vs Nokia
Unstoppable force vs unbreakable object
PARADOX
That is not a paradox.
yes... yes it is
No, whatever he's hitting the Nokia phone with, the ground. A mountain. A diamond it just demolishes it. NO PARADOX.
but he's hitting the Nokia with his own punch, like, holding Nokia in one hand and punch with other hand (something like clapping but with one punch)
+Hemuro4ever Nokia can't demolish Chuck Norris
While I quite like the idea that “the magic system” works this way-it is probably not scientist-accurate to say this is “the only possibility.” Some more possibilities include:
1. Time slows to an exponentially slower and slower crawl the closer the two objects get to each other, so that they never reach each other.
2. Space tears in such a way that they have to pass by each other having somehow bent their trajectories. (And maybe more clearly the unstoppable force is made to move slightly to pass by and not impact or intersect with the immovable object.)
3. Some kind of portals form, causing one or both objects to teleport to a different location (a variant of the above).
4. The objects meld together and combine their properties to create some kind of third object with a super-property that somehow solves this as a paradox.
6. In a more gnarly scenario, the universe ends so that the paradox is not achieved. Lights out. Or, slightly more hopefully…
5. Both objects annihilate each other in what could be (A) a blinding release of energy so bright and powerful that it illuminates and perhaps damages most if not all of the universe, or (B) a kind of negative energy anti-spike, releasing a vacuum of power so great, most of the energy, if not all, of the universe is drawn (or “sucked”) into it.
Perhaps either of these scenarios would be great enough to create a new universe and, in a symbolically satisfying way, might be THE way -how universes form.
7. Speaking of which, perhaps there are (at least) two new universes spawned at the moment of contact (by the same mechanisms that-supposedly-time travel can create alternate realities?) which represent the diametrically opposed outcomes possible-the immovable moves, the unstoppable stops-perhaps more realities occur too: the objects pass through each other, some or all of the contingencies on this list occur, etc.
8. A compromise occurs, where part of the immovable object moves, and becomes part of the unstoppable force, and part of the unstoppable force object is stopped, thus becoming part of the immovable object…
9. Both objects disintegrate and are no more.
10. Both objects lose their properties and become “un-magical,” returning to the state of normal matter…
11. A time-paradox occurs where objects, items and even characters are sent back in time to prevent this from happening in the first place… thus stopping the question from ever being physically posed…
12. Perhaps the outcome of this is so problematic or inherently impossible that-in a variant of 7, or the original video’s pass-through solution-it is revealed that this problem could never be actually be set up, and there were always two universes-one belonging to (and perhaps anchored to / centered on) the Immovable Object, and the other one belonging to (and perhaps anchored to / centered on) the Unstoppable Force. These two universes would have been enmeshed in complete unity with the appearance of being one. The enactment of this paradox, forces the illusion of oneness to be dissolved, and the truth about their being two universe to be revealed, with both universes going out of phase with each other-half the objects in our known reality (living in the universe of the immovable object) being able to pass through the other half of the objects (living in the universe of the unstoppable force) in our known reality. We:they could still perceive each other but not be able to interact-families and lovers would be separated-not able to touch ever again-as it would be revealed that the two objects, immovable and unstoppable, never really inhabited the same universe, the same cosmic reality, to begin with… it was all an interconnected illusion to make it appear so until we forced the hand of God.
13. In a similar way, both in terms of revealing the premises as originally impossible, and in veering a little bit more towards storytelling and fiction and away from pure physics, perhaps: all those perceiving the immovable object and the unstoppable force wake up… and realize it was all a dream: of course this scenario is impossible-how could it ever be otherwise?
14. As the objects begin to get close to touching, their size begins to collapse-and one or both of the objects-gets smaller and smaller, shrinking at such a rate that as they approach, they can never actually touch, so that they keep getting infinitesimally smaller, in a way that their surfaces can never collide or make contact…
15. In a variant of this, and perhaps also of 2, (or even a space-time variant of 1,) the universe continuously generates “new” space between the two objects, stretching out the distance that must be travelled prior to impact, so that they never actually reach each other.
16. One* or both objects distort their shapes so they “do the limbo” and pass by each other without touching. *If the immovable object changing its shape counts as it “moving,” then probably the unstoppable force can do the distorting to avoid it. (This one was easy, and I can’t believe I didn’t think of this earlier.)
17. Their super-ordinate “magical” properties are exchanged, and the unstoppable force becomes the immovable object, and the immovable object becomes the unstoppable force. Cosmic mantles (or identities) remain undefiled, and the perseverance and transfer of properties is sufficient from preventing a true conundrum from occuring. Perhaps the true object-ness is embodied in the transferable properties, rather than in the objects themselves, and so we’d see the moving object stop and become immutably fixed in space, and the stationary object move, becoming an unbeatable juggernaut of motion…
18. In a variant of the above, one or both of the objects transfer their superordinate “-ness” properties laterally to another one or two objects who, now not on a collision course, take on these powers. (A superhero [or superhero/villain duo?] is born?)
19. All objects in the universe become massless, weightless objects, with the requirement that they absolutely and fully pass through each other… including these unstoppable/immovable two… so everyone and everything can only pass through each other now… as a by-product of the videos Zeroth pass-through solution…
20. The light from the collision event is constrained by the paradox, and cannot emerge: and thus, in the absence of an observer, the outcome takes on a Schrödinger’s cat uncertainty situation: such that we must know that: (A) the unstoppable force has both crushed the immovable object on its way through and (B) the immovable object has infinitely resisted the unstoppable force, pancaking the incoming object against its implacable surface, indisputably. As the observability of the outcome is forever barred to all outside observers, we must eternally live in a universe where both states have come to be.
21. In order for this to not be a conundrum at all, new dimensions of space and time are either created or revealed through, by and in which, there is no paradox after all.
The writer in me couldn’t resist tackling this…
Just some food for thought!
Great videos!
'NOOOO, YOU CANT JUST NOT BE AFFECTED BY AN UNSTOPPABLE FORCE!'
'haha unstoppable force go fwoooosh'
The video: talks about the second law of Newton
Me: has PTSD from physics class
can we not joke about that? ptsd is a serious thing
@@AstralArbourSys HAAA
@@tonysbanned I'm sorry, this is funny to you?
@@AstralArbourSys yes u snowflake😹😹😹 it’s hilarious
@@AstralArbourSys learn abut dark humour. We're not making fun of ptsd affected people
Find me an immovable object and I'll put this question to rest.
i found your mom
i had to do i am so sorry hehaeheaheadahahea
triggered lmaoo
1:47 my humor is broken why is this so funny to me
i laughed at that too lol
because ok