/sci/ - Science & Math

an unstoppable force moving towards an immovable object?

nothing will happen.

>metal

Not enough details.
Looks like it would just fall apart before they even touch.
Also diamond is not a metal

>>4637866
Unstoppable force implies every object is movable.
Unmovable object implies every force is stoppable.

>mfw people are actually taking this seriously

It seems the person who created that picture confused "material" with "metal" and "hardest" with "indestructible"

obviousy its qould cause a collase inn the magor stelor sistem and colapse out universe... duh...

that's the point. They'll cancel each other out.

>>4637870
Unless the unstoppable object simply phases through the immovable one and continues on, fulfilling both requirements.

>>4637870
The difference between a philosofag and a scientist is that a scientist doesn't stop thinking after hearing words like "unstoppable" and "unmovable". A scientist will test that claim. A scientist knows that even the moon can be blown up given enough explosives and time. The resources required are finite (but may be beyond the ability of humankind at this point).

>2007
Learn to EXIF before you shit post next time

>>4637870

Or not?

The unstoppable force would go trough the unmovable object without moving it and hitting the next movable object.

>>4637879
I'm not understanding clearly. What do you mean, "phases" out?

>people are still talking about this

>>4637881
>>4637881
Your scientist is an idiot then. You define a word as something and then deny the definition.

>>4637877

/thread

>>4637890
I mean this >>4637885

The unstoppable object is unstopped
The immovable one is unmoved
As they both, by definition, must be.

>this thread

Fucking idiots

The car will stop.
It will however be undamaged

it will just push the wall forward. where does it say it is tied down?

That diamond jpg had trolled so much people since 2004.

>>4637857

The pic is fallacious, because the wall and care are not made of Dragonforce, which is the hardest metal known the man.

>>4637936
Are you like 12?

>>4637938
Yes.

We must consult the fully completed tests.

>>4637894
Actually you are the idiot and the philosofag I described.

Because for a scientist, a claim is not always true or even credible until tested and verified. While for philosofags, they assume claims as facts without testing them and hastily jump into pointless arguments. "Unmovable object" is a claim and it should be tested before even trying to answer what will happen when something rams into it.

>>4637938

>Sir, I contend that you are the 12-year-old here, because you do not recognize an old meme and therefore should lurk moar.

>>4637943
I'm going to go make a cake with sugar-free frosting and perform experiments on it to see if it contains glucose!

>>4637943

Those are the initial statements. Do not be an smartass and try to go around them.

You are jelly because you did not come up with something like:

>>4637885
>>4637879

>>4637943
You've gone full retard, son.

Unmovable means incapable of motion.

This however, defines nothing about the objects interaction with forces.

If you assume forces always result in the movement of an object, then you have a problem.

>>4637957
It just means that you slept through math class, especially elementary logic. From a false statement you can imply anything. Assume something wrong like 1>1 and anything follows. So that's why whatever you say without checking the initial statement is pointless.

>>4637962
The one being full retard is you. I'm talking about testing the claim. I don't even know what this "interaction with force" you're so excited about when I haven't even talked about the design of the test itself. Reading comprehension is, perhaps, beyond some people.

I'm going on the assumption OP is referring to some non-existent, indestructible metal like adamantium.

Probably an elastic collision which would result in the car bouncing off the wall. If the mass of the wall is far greater than the mass of the car, then the car will bounce off the wall at about twice the speed but in the opposite direction. But in real life, some of the KE would be loss in sound, heat, work deforming the metallic frame, etc.

>>4637866
>>4637879
>>4637885

these

>>4637973

Oh boy! I will tell you wonderful stories about axioms, Godel and your idiotic mind.

>Post old /b/ meme on /sci/
>Over 9000 replies
>2012

>>4637979
And I'll tell you how scientists and mathematicians know they don't discover the grand truth, and they don't care.

If you assume 1>1, which is in contradiction with commonly held axioms (assuming 1 and the relation > use common definitions), anything will follow. Same thing here, if you make a claim like an "unmovable object" it will need to be tested against commonly held axioms (like what is an "object", what is "unmovable"). If it contradicts the commonly held axioms, then whatever you say is right in your fantasy land, but wrong when you assume commonly held axioms. As in, the ones that put us on the moon.

>>4637998
Edit : not wrong, just irrelevant since anything follows.

>>4637973
> The one being full retard is you. I'm talking about testing the claim. I don't even know what this "interaction with force" you're so excited about when I haven't even talked about the design of the test itself. Reading comprehension is, perhaps, beyond some people.

> I don't even know what this "interaction with force" you're so excited about when I haven't even talked about the design of the test itself.

> Sentence Fragment

> Reading comprehension is, perhaps, beyond some people.
INDEED IT IS

>>4638011
Ran out of real arguments, I see. Time for some English discussion instead ?

car made of wood hits a tree what happens?

>>4638016
WHo are you talking to?