Immovable Object vs. Unstoppable Force - Which Wins?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 вер 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
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
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.
"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.
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
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.
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
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
"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
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*
I can just imagine random present boxes floating around in space, colliding through planets and stars with nothing to stop it but itself
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!!
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 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
“Ain’t no mountain high enough, to keep me from love you baby”
The Dutch mountain:
*“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
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.
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
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.
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. 🙄
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
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
Summary:
1. They are literally the same thing from different perspectives
2. They just pass through each other
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..
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?
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 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
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
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
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 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
"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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
1:47 my humor is broken why is this so funny to me
i laughed at that too lol
because ok
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.
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
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.
The unstoppable force passes through the immovable object, so the force is not stopped and the object is not moved. Pretty good theory
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
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
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 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.
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
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.
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.
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
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. ^
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.
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
He actually answers with only logical explanations to a literally ancient question.
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
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.
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 😂
When you are trying to find out about something then a simple animated UA-cam video shows up:
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
Omg here's a simple answer everyone wants. Gta 5 train and a ramp
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
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.
You see Ivan,
If you become unstoppable force,
Other unstoppable force will pass through
You become invincible
Thx Jimmy 😂
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 ?
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
Immovable object: oh hello there.
Unstoppable force: hey nice to see you again.
Immovable object: ok have a nice day bye.
Unstoppable force: ok you too.
"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
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
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
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
The answer to this question was found when Chuck Norris punched himself in the face.
So... did he punched himself?
when you punch yourself and it hurts, are you too strong or too weak? -tumblr
lingling chen Neither, you're a fool
he actually made sence
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'
when an Immovable Object meet an Unstoppable Force : understandable have a great day
Much like Vsauce, you’ve missed the point of the question.
People basically want a rundown of scenes like where Hulk and Hulkbuster punch each other at the exact same time and all the windows explode.
why did my heart beat faster when the two presents were moving towards eachother?
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
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.
"It might be immovable but its but its not unbreakable"
-Anime protagonist with power of love
The way he pulled out the definition on paper nearly killed me 😂😂😂
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
"Are you sure that you can move all this by yourself"
"Just watch"
"I LOVE YOU HOUSE"
When did it become the "unstoppable" force? I've always heard it described as the irresistible force; suggesting that it would push or bowl over anything that came its path.
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
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 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.
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
The question itself is actually paradoxical. If we have an 'unstoppable' force, by definition, there cannot exist anything that can withstand its force. Therefore, there cannot exist an 'immovable' object, if there exists an unstoppable force. The opposite would also be true. Therefore the question itself is paradoxical and hence there is no answer.
Anurag Krishnan That's the philosophical/logical answer, this is about the physical/logical answer.
Anurag Krishnan I have an idea let's say there's a immovable object and a unstoppable Force pushing it it wouldn't move since it's immovable
Joel Singh But if the object is immovable, then by logic an unstoppable force cannot exist. Conversely, if an unstoppable force exists, an immovable object cannot. Only one can exist at any point in time.
Anurag Krishnan U are problay correct since I'm dumb
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.
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
The whole point of the video can be compress into a single minute video.
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
an unstoppable force vs an immovable object is basically like 2 women having an argument
Wow clever.
True Story
Seth Jones sexist
r/comedycemetery
Mirondius depends, if it’s a woman then they’re making fun of themselves. If it’s a man, then It still might not be sexist
I'm no scientist, but saying an object "moves" simply because your reference point of it changes just seems silly to me. By that logic, the Sun really does revolve around the Earth.
He elaborates by saying "the laws of physics has no preference over frame of reference". For some intents the Sun truly does so.
I suppose so, but for all physics and dynamics of science, the Sun does NOT revolve around the Earth, even if that's the way it appears from our point of reference. I realize that he's not exactly /wrong/ here, and it's not even his ideas, it's the ideas of renowned scientists, I'm just saying that it seems a bit silly to me.
Roselieansy Relativity is extremely important though, the concept that things look different in different frames of references explains things such as time dilation, gravity and even gives rise to the E = mc^2 formula. The problem is, you want to think there's an absolute in the universe somewhere so we can say that the earth revolves around the sun, absolutely. We don't think we can really get an absolute answer to that though, because the sun revolves around the center of our galaxy (I believe), and because the sun revolves around our galaxy, than our earth revolves around our galaxy. Is the earth revolving around the galaxy, or the sun? Or both? And the answer to that is depending on what frame of reference and what system you consider. To the solar system the earth revolves around the sun, while to the galaxy, for all intents and purposes, the earth revolves around the center of the galaxy. And of course, to the earth, the sun revolves around the earth, which is what WE as earthlings observe.
The thing is that in our frame of reference the sun DOES move around the Earth. Relativity is extremely important. Thanks to relativity we know why Mercury is liquid, how electromagnetism works, we knew planets exist before we observed them, etc.
To put it in perspective and using your logic, saying an object "is stationary" because your reference point of it does not change is equally silly, because we are always spinning on our axis, revolving around the sun, and flying through the galaxy. It's all relatively relative, if you pardon the shameless pun.
I imagine that the unstoppable force becomes immovable and vice versa
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
An unstoppable force can't meet an immovable object. There can only be one by definition. If there is an unstoppable force then there cannot be an immovable object because the unstoppable force cannot be stopped by anything therefor there could not be an immovable object and visa versa.
+Tom Manchester well, if you take newtons 3rd law, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, then technically if there were to be an "unstoppable force" then an "immovable object" would exist
+Theodore Bagwell
Newton's 3rd Law of MOTION governs bodies that are 'IN MOTION'. Since the immovable object can never be in motion, your argument is invalid.
Tom Manchester
The only solution is for them to pass through each other, which is exactly what the video said. Did you even pay attention?
OK then, by the logic of something I don't entirely understand but can understand well enough to correct a year old comment that no one longer cares about, yeah, I had something, thought about it and disproved myself, well
Asking what what happens if an unstoppable force meets an immovable object is like asking if two people can be taller than each other. It's scientifically impossible.
Ngl I'm watching math videos I don't entirely understand right now but eventually when I get to that I'll be prepared by a little, it really helps