Who would win?

[Plain Old Jane]

the Irresistable Force, or the Immovable object?

please explain your answer. I already have a theory, but I do wanna see others opinions.

[thecreeper]

jep, you seem like a nice person, but you make the WORST polls i have ever seen.



that being said, the unmovable object, definitely.

[malta]

A tie between both, STUPID xINFINITI!

[Plain Old Jane]

well even though no one will read it, I'll post my theory anyway.

lets postulate!

Immovable Object - I take this to understand that if force = mass * velocity. we want velocity to be zero, but we dont want force to equal to zero, or the object in question will be able to react to outside stimuli. therefore, I postulate that the object in question has to have infinite mass. I can only think of one such object that theoretically exists, a quantum singularity. Black Hole.

the textbook definition would be a proto star that used too much energy too fast, and became so heavy that its own weight pulled it all into a little black ball of absolute force and destruction. Theoretically, the gravity emitted by this singularity effects everything in the universe, its gravity is also so strong that it sucks in even light. (even tho light has no mass)

Irresistable force - I take this as a force that cannot be stopped ever, by anything. Let us look to einsteins theory of relativity for the answer, E = MC^2, which is how much energy is needed to move any object. the heavier the object, ther harder it is to reach the speed of light.

in order to never stop, the force must not be limited by energy in energy out scenerio. therefore the Energy in must be zero. C is already calculated, therefore we need an object with no weight. that object is light. (photons, yes, we've met before.) They are everywhere, and they never stop, for anything ever.

turn on a lamp, put your hand between you and the light. Is the light stopping. no, they just bounce off your hand. they have a wave/particle aspect so you can interpret color, brightness, and intensity.

NOW! if anyone can find out what happens when photons enter a black hole, you'll have the answer to this question.

[Mr Biglesworth]

I'm definitely no science student, but if force = mass * velocity where the velocity is 0 and the mass in infinite, then 0 * infinity is another way of saying "no instances of infinite mass" and therefore force would still equal 0.

But i'm still up for the photon/black hole experiment. I propose we send sharkz in as an investigative journalist.

[Plain Old Jane]

hahah, naw bigs, infinite is undefined just like deviding by 0, same thing really...

[Mike]

The only thing that is immoveable is God. God is not an object, hence, there is no immoveable object. (Thomas)

The irresistable force ... I've yet to find any force that is 100% resistable, there for all forces have some bit of irresistability.

Other? More like ... smother. Me. Now.

[heX]

i voted for another, and that would be me

ROB RULES '05!!!

[thecreeper]

Originally Posted by heX

i voted for another, and that would be me

ROB RULES '05!!!

you are an irresistable force, hex. i bet the women can hardly keep their hands off you.

[raublekick]

Originally Posted by thecreeper

you are an irresistable force, hex. i bet the women can hardly keep their hands off you.

nah, hex is more like the black hole, everything gets stuck in there.

[Plain Old Jane]

this is a question grounded in physics, not theology, one cant expect a question like this one and a question like "if a person who cant be smacked in the face meets a person who can smack anyone in the face meet, what would happen?" to mean exactly the same thing. Though I agree hex is black.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by NorthernCross

this is a question grounded in physics, not theology, one cant expect a question like this one and a question like "if a person who cant be smacked in the face meets a person who can smack anyone in the face meet, what would happen?" to mean exactly the same thing. Though I agree hex is black.

This question is not grounded in physics, it is grounded in a paradox that can be answered a dozen different ways (like the 'tree falls in the woods', 'chicken and the egg' shit--they're not meant to be answered, but they can be answered). You simply asked "Who wins the irresistable force or the immoveable object? Please explain your answer." There is no mention of any legitimate physics (and don't claim that the terms themselves, force, moving, etc are 'physics' terms. If they are, that'd be a damn shame for physicists) in the question, and it's a question that can be answer anyway. Hence, I answered it theologically, based on the argument of a prime mover, actuality, potentiality, and first cause. I think that it's legitimate.

Your examples weren't based on 'physics' they were based on theory, as you pointed out. People have theorized that there are black holes, and you mentioned that it only "theoretically exists" which is true, because there is no proof for the existence of a black hole, yet people reason to believe that they exist. There is another thing that can also theoretically exist. I already mentioned it.

Though, entertaining the idea that Black Holes exist (which I have to agree that they do, or are theoretically possible given what we percieve of the universe), you mentioned that we can answer the question once we 'find out' what happens when photons enter a black hole. People generally 'find something out' by using their senses. Because this event is rather far ... I doubt that we'd be able to use our senses of touch, taste, or any of those, and really focus the most on sight (whether it actually be looking through an 'infinitely' strong telescope, or just watching bends in space/time on a graph, if that were somehow measurable). It is generally agreed upon that photons approaching the event horizon take an infinite amount of time to reach the actual event horizon, as time dilation grows exponentially the closer the photon is to the event horizon. An infinite amount of time, in this case, becomes no time at all [literally, not figuratively], as we can only judge the distance the photon travels by time... and if it takes an infinite amount of time for that photon to reach the event horizon, then it is as good as permanently still. Stillness, unfortunately, is impossible. There can only be stillness in the absense of that photon, as that photon carries enough heat to prevent absolute zero. Additionally, the entire universe would have to be still, as the heat that the moving universe generates--even a tiny speck of friction between an ant and a plank of wood that it is moving on--is enough heat to prevent absolute zero.

Because this question is asked of us [anyone, as you said] (as you cannot ask a photon a question), because of General and Special Relativity, it is impossible to wager that the photon ever meets the event horizon (in that time ceases to exist, for us, when watching a photon approach the event horizon).

[raublekick]

I'd say that the two objects cannot coexist. You have an object that can move anything, and an object that can't be moved by anything, basically. One of these objects would have to give in to the other, which it is doesn't matter, but one of them is not real. If the irrisistable force moves the immovable object, then the immovable object wasn't immovable. If the immovable object stands it's ground against the irrisistable force, then the irrisistable force wasn't irrisistable.

Think of it like a tournament, where these two objects faced off on every object except each other, and now it's the final championship to determine who is the ultimate entity.

[heX]

Originally Posted by raublekick

Think of it like a tournament, where these two objects faced off on every object except each other, and now it's the final championship to determine who is the ultimate entity.

ROB STATE ULTIMATE ENTITY CHAMP '05!

[Plain Old Jane]

Originally Posted by Mike

This question is not grounded in physics

I'll rephrase then, Define both the objects and explain your answer. it is grounded in physics, or at least, all or some of the knowledge contained within the bounds of our universe.

There is no mention of any legitimate physics (and don't claim that the terms themselves, force, moving, etc are 'physics' terms. If they are, that'd be a damn shame for physicists) in the question, and it's a question that can be answer anyway.

I used the laws and proven theories of Issac Newton, Einstein, and Schrodinger, as well as dabbled in DeBroglie, and Bohr and Hawking. (newton for general laws of motion, einstein for energy and relativity, schrodinger for his comment on general quantum theory. DeBroglie discovered Particle/Wave attributes and photon shiznit, Bohr for atomic theory, and hawking for his view on black holes.) for my theory anyway, I should have asked a more open ended question, "explain how you define the objects and then answer the question." I apologize for the misconstruementismness.

Hence, I answered it theologically, based on the argument of a prime mover, actuality, potentiality, and first cause. I think that it's legitimate.

I agree, I apologize if i made you feel otherwise.

Your examples weren't based on 'physics' they were based on theory, as you pointed out. People have theorized that there are black holes, and you mentioned that it only "theoretically exists" which is true, because there is no proof for the existence of a black hole, yet people reason to believe that they exist. There is another thing that can also theoretically exist. I already mentioned it.

touche' my friend...

Though, entertaining the idea that Black Holes exist (which I have to agree that they do, or are theoretically possible given what we percieve of the universe), you mentioned that we can answer the question once we 'find out' what happens when photons enter a black hole. People generally 'find something out' by using their senses. Because this event is rather far ... I doubt that we'd be able to use our senses of touch, taste, or any of those, and really focus the most on sight (whether it actually be looking through an 'infinitely' strong telescope, or just watching bends in space/time on a graph, if that were somehow measurable). It is generally agreed upon that photons approaching the event horizon take an infinite amount of time to reach the actual event horizon, as time dilation grows exponentially the closer the photon is to the event horizon.

I'll have to disagree with you here, time dialates as one approaches the speed of light, not as one approaches the event horizon. (at least, thats what einstein says.) Since light already travels C, it would be impossible to go faster without an INFINITLY powerful outside force.

and for that matter, if it were to go "faster," since time is already stopped/all at once, where's it gonna go? Back in time, i'd wager. (so, right back at you?)

if you view time as something like this

Time: normal...... slowing ...... stopped*...... backwards
--------------->--------->----->---> + <------...
Speed:
----------------------------------->....-->...---??
conventional speed..................... C** ...Faster than light

*stopped/all at once
**Speed of light

An infinite amount of time, in this case, becomes no time at all [literally, not figuratively], as we can only judge the distance the photon travels by time... and if it takes an infinite amount of time for that photon to reach the event horizon, then it is as good as permanently still.

I think you are thinking of time as an absolute here, which isnt true, its relative, and for that fact theoretically non existant.(merely a construct of the mind that cant understand a point where it does not exist, ie. death. according to my own interpretations, as well some interpretations of einstein and some contemporary philosophers.)

Time is not the same for you as it is for the photon. The photon is already at C, and therefore since time would literally stop/happen all at once for the photon, therefore being literally everywhere at once. But light still functions to our relative perception of it, despite its temporally paradoxical nature.

If you can explain why light still bounces off my hand instead of remaining at the light source since its going C at all times, I'll gladdly accept it.

otherwise you may have to answer in more detail or point me to a source concerning light approaching event horizons. (But I think you're mixxing Zeno's Paradox with Einsteins Relativity.)

Stillness, unfortunately, is impossible. There can only be stillness in the absense of that photon, as that photon carries enough heat to prevent absolute zero. Additionally, the entire universe would have to be still, as the heat that the moving universe generates--even a tiny speck of friction between an ant and a plank of wood that it is moving on--is enough heat to prevent absolute zero.

Excellent point!

Because this question is asked of us [anyone, as you said] (as you cannot ask a photon a question), because of General and Special Relativity, it is impossible to wager that the photon ever meets the event horizon (in that time ceases to exist, for us, when watching a photon approach the event horizon).

well, yes technically it will forever be impossible to witness this event physically speaking. Because of the gravity of the object in question, if one were to hold a white flashlight while being pulled into a black hole, it would fade to red then purple, then blue, then the only photons that could escape would be infrared, but those'd fade too because their short distance waves. But to the person holding the light, it'd still be white, time is relative you see.

But I dont quite understand why the photon would never reach the event horizon. like I said, I think your mixing theories... (but I could be wrong, can you elaborate?)