This thread is permanently archived
Who would win?
| The immovable object. The force might be unstoppable, but that does not mean that it can move whatever it wants.
Unstoppable definition:
"impossible to stop or prevent."
The force can not be prevented. The force will happen. But that does not mean that it can move every object or even most objects. The word "unstoppable" says nothing about the strength of the force, just that the force will happen.
So since immovable object by definition can not be moved, it easily wins.
| Object, the force would damage the immovable object and eventually just cut through it, but never move the object which is the purpose of the question.
| What about a spear that can pierce anything and a shield that can be pierced by nothing? Who would win in this situation?
| >>754100 the force would be so unstoppable and the object would be so immovable that they would just phase through each other
| If we use physics, inertia says that an immovable object would need to have an unstopable force to conter act everything or at least be an object that is able to perfeclty reflect any force used against it, they are either the same thing or an infinit speed eobject vs the perfect perfect reflector object.
Depending on how you analyse it they either end both having their properties nullified by the impact, or they both get destroyed clashing.
| king kong would win
| big
monke
| I mean, we should probably make some definitions. What is considered a "win" for these two combatants? That the unstoppable force move the object, and the immovable object remains immovable?
When you apply force on something, you'll always be applying the force even if that something doesn't "move." The absence of movement does not constitute the absence of force. The force is always there, always "unstoppable" so long as it is applied, but the object need not move for force to exist.
This thread is permanently archived
| An unstoppable force or an immovable object? Discuss.