At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
they share a spot of tea. I have yet to come across either of the two, unless you count death and taxes.
There are no infinite forces, or objects with infinite momentum or infinite mass. So really, this question is meaningless.
No I was just asking your line of thought on this imaginary scenario.
Well.... this is physics... imagination should be backed by valid arguments.
you mean if F1 = 100000000... hits, F2 = 100000000... then F1-F2 = 0, as long as they are the same value the will always cancel each other out, the outcome is 0 total force
Or what happens when a force of 10^100 Newtons acts on an object of mass 10^100 kg? It accelerates at 1 m/s
Well I agree it's not a perfectly valid question.Just sounded interesting
But in that case the unstoppable force must not stop
the issue is: what is the definition of an "unstoppable force"? And what is the definition of an "unmovable object"? I'm not talking about giving definitions in the language of philosophy from 500 BC or 1400 AD. I mean in the understanding we have of how the world works since Galileo and Newton.
unstoppable means that no matter how much force acts against this object, it will continue its way (therefore I believe it has infinite momentum or kinetic energy maybe because it has infinite mass. unmovable means that no matter how hard you hit it, it wont move an inch there I would state that it has also infinite mass and has to have at least some infinitesimal speed because momentum involves mass and velocity or maybe has some sort of potential energy of infinite proportions too. The unstoppable would win this I believe it has better extraordinary super properties than the unmovable, one is passive the other is active one remains neutral while the other is doing the action.
But why wouldn't the unstoppable win?
@santistebanc , your definition makes no sense. There is no such thing as an unstoppable force. You are talking language which no one in the West has used for more than 400 years.
I think he defined the literal sense of the words.They don't need to exist.We can think of the situation as an imaginary paradox
Yes, we can. But just like Xeno's paradox, we can resolve it very quickly by clarifying our thinking.
By clarifying your mind do you mean to state that to determine the consequence is impossible?