What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?

is it different to a circle square?

The unstoppable force is deflected without losing momentum ; the immovable object doesn't move.

lulz ensues

The force goes through the object

Either
>a singularity is created
>the object breaks (it's not unbreakable)
>the force is deflected (it's not undeflectable)
>the force passes through the object since 4 fundamental forces < ∞ force

to be unstoppable, it's momentum ha to be infinity
so they both end up with infinity/2 momentum
which is infinity
so now you have two unstoppable forces

heath ledger dies

What happens when a car made of diamond crashes into a wall made of dragonforce?

we are talking about sex are we?

what happens when muh BBC meets your wifes vagina?

the answer is GRAVITY

what the fuck is an "unstoppable force"

You wake up

This is correct.

so the unstoppable force had its vector cancelled. Just like every other stoppable force.

>unstoppable force
F = infty
>immovable object
m = infty

a = infty / infty

So just use lhopitals rule

Its not a hard question.

If they are truly unmovable and unstoppable, then they have to pass through each other and continue being unstopped and unmoved. If they don't then the premise isn't true.

not even, simplifies to 1

This
"Unstoppable" implies an object in motion that can't be stopped, but a "force" is not a real object, it's an interaction between objects.

I think the force would exert infite force agains the object, which would refuse to yield

>>>/sqt/

The force becomes the unmovable object, and the unmovable object becomes the force

...

Underrated

>unstoppable force
Care to name this force?
>immovable object
Not even possible. Eventually, any object you care to describe will have a binding energy that can be overcome by applying a large enough force. Even assuming that you can access to an infinite amount of energy that can be applied to an "immovable object", that object's binding energy will, at some level, be overcome, and it will be blasted apart. There is no such thing as an infinite amount of binding energy, and even if the object had a ridiculously high binding energy, local damage can still occur, which would eventually result in moving the immovable object if permitted to go on indefinitely.

But your question is still retarded because no such things exist, and the entire thought experiment relies on a severely simplistic and ill-informed version of physics that is not reflective of the real world.
>basically, fuck off cunt

it gets very warm

The joker still wins

HAIYO

>What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?

divide by zero error.

Nothing is unmovable and unstoppable unless thet phase through each other.

Oh SH-

Why? It's not a question about world history

...

correct

You tell me

Bad argument desuyo. In mathematics you can create valid concepts just by negating them desu. I can imagine an immovable kitten for example. For example, consider a function F(v,P) which takes as input a vector v and a polygon P and outputs another polygon. We say that F(v,P) is the polygon resulted from applying v to P. In other words a translation of some sort. Then I can define my F such that it has a class of P's such that for all v's, F(v,P) = P. So it doesn't move. Desu

They switch places with one another.

Question is ill-defined, waste of time

>In mathematics you can create valid concepts just by negating them
Wrong. Oh so wrong.
For example: there is no [math]\epsilon \in \mathbb{R}[/math] such that [math]\epsilon < r \ \forall \ r \in \mathbb{R}[/math].
You can't create a valid concept by asserting that such an [math]\epsilon[/math] exists.

fpbp

that's because the set of real numbers is a paradoxical concept by itself

Except the concepts aren't obviously not legitimate? They are just not realistic.

[math]o^2[/math]

alright, Norman. [math]\epsilon \not\in \mathbb{Q}[/math] either.