Talk:3084: Unstoppable Force and Immovable Object - Revision history

92.23.2.228 at 23:34, 17 August 2025

2025-08-17T23:34:02Z

SMGmsgsgd at 20:02, 17 August 2025

2025-08-17T20:02:04Z

SMGmsgsgd at 20:00, 17 August 2025

2025-08-17T20:00:44Z

92.23.2.228 at 17:38, 16 August 2025

2025-08-16T17:38:04Z

92.23.2.228 at 17:35, 16 August 2025

2025-08-16T17:35:04Z

SMGmsgsgd at 11:06, 16 August 2025

2025-08-16T11:06:14Z

SMGmsgsgd at 10:06, 8 August 2025

2025-08-08T10:06:13Z

SMGmsgsgd at 09:59, 8 August 2025

2025-08-08T09:59:22Z

Not without text at 14:09, 15 May 2025

2025-05-15T14:09:58Z

172.70.126.111 at 20:31, 6 May 2025

2025-05-06T20:31:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:34, 17 August 2025
Line 66:		Line 66:
	::You're already in trouble (at the very least mathematical, possibly also as an incautious observer, within the technically infinite range of all secondary effects) if ''either'' element of the problem is infinitely anything... having them both being infinite (including in direct opposition, say two infinitely unstoppable items colliding, or even a glancing blow) isn't ''much'' worse, as far as how infinities go (though something that produces an answer involving ∞×∞ at some point ''could'' be considered to be far more ...interesting). That's once you get over the fact that you're dealing with mathematics involving some definition of ''ω'' or even ''ε'', and have to deal with those appropriately. [[Special:Contributions/92.23.2.228\|92.23.2.228]] 17:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)		::You're already in trouble (at the very least mathematical, possibly also as an incautious observer, within the technically infinite range of all secondary effects) if ''either'' element of the problem is infinitely anything... having them both being infinite (including in direct opposition, say two infinitely unstoppable items colliding, or even a glancing blow) isn't ''much'' worse, as far as how infinities go (though something that produces an answer involving ∞×∞ at some point ''could'' be considered to be far more ...interesting). That's once you get over the fact that you're dealing with mathematics involving some definition of ''ω'' or even ''ε'', and have to deal with those appropriately. [[Special:Contributions/92.23.2.228\|92.23.2.228]] 17:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
	:::1) So, what is difference between ''(+∞) + (-∞)'' and ''∞ - ∞''? 2) if they're commutative, then what's the meaning of "(+x) + (-x), ∴ = 0" result? Both objects annihilating each-other into energy (impossible - they're infinitely durable)? Object's speed changing to arithmetic mean of their speeds, with regard to elasticity (impossible - they're immovable)? 3) if they're non-commutative, then what happens? --[[User:SMGmsgsgd\|SMGmsgsgd]] ([[User talk:SMGmsgsgd\|talk]]) 20:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC)		:::1) So, what is difference between ''(+∞) + (-∞)'' and ''∞ - ∞''? 2) if they're commutative, then what's the meaning of "(+x) + (-x), ∴ = 0" result? Both objects annihilating each-other into energy (impossible - they're infinitely durable)? Object's speed changing to arithmetic mean of their speeds, with regard to elasticity (impossible - they're immovable)? 3) if they're non-commutative, then what happens? --[[User:SMGmsgsgd\|SMGmsgsgd]] ([[User talk:SMGmsgsgd\|talk]]) 20:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
		+	::::You need to start by defining your infinities, and how they work, a lot better than "just being infinity" to get any definite idea of what any of those issues mean. What positive infinite plus negative infinity adds up to can be... tricky. As can doing something like ''p=mv'' for infinite mass but zero velocity. (Anything times zero is zero, yet anything times infinity is infinity? Actually, ''p'' could end up as anything, in the end. Depends upon how you look at it.) And I absolutely do not think that anything so definitially extreme will just cancel itself out. This is, of course, part of the problem being posited by the UF+IO idea. Where not mutually and fully intangible to each other, of course. [[Special:Contributions/92.23.2.228\|92.23.2.228]] 23:34, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

@@ Line 63: / Line 63: @@
 :In simpler terms: Unstoppable Force vs Immovable Object, if both of them are '''''infinitely strong and corporeal''''' - is 1) meaningless as it boils to "(+∞) + (-∞)" (Infinity minus Infinity) and is undefined, and 2) irrelevant since infinitely many waste energy from this destroys entire Universe, so it's impossible to look and determine who ultimately "won". --[[User:SMGmsgsgd|SMGmsgsgd]] ([[User talk:SMGmsgsgd|talk]]) 11:06, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
 ::Technically, that's more like two unstoppable things ''meeting from opposite directions''. The difference between something unstoppable and something unmovable might be better looked at in terms of momentum (unstoppable may be finite speed but infinite mass, unmovable is technically zero speed but still infinite mass) in which the infinities apply to the scalar elements and ''-∞'' makes no sense as an element. Though ''∞ - ∞'' may indeed come out of the comparison, not ''(+∞) + (-∞)'', and transfinite mathematics are likely to care a lot more that these are ''not'' equivalents, we're also into the realms of it being non-commutative ''and'' not reducing to "(+x) + (-x), ∴ = 0".
 ::By another treatment, the effect upon the unstoppable object is infinite (the force/dynamic-momentum/whatever of the immovable one) and the one upon the immovable object is infinite (the resistance/static-momentum/whatever of the unstoppable one) resulting in 'infinity-times-two' (whatever that means!) total disruption, compared merely with the 'infinity-esque' quantity of disruption if either an unstoppable item were to hit a movable one or an immovable one is hit by something that is stoppable.
 ::You're already in trouble (at the very least mathematical, possibly also as an incautious observer, within the technically infinite range of all secondary effects) if ''either'' element of the problem is infinitely anything... having them both being infinite (including in direct opposition, say two infinitely unstoppable items colliding, or even a glancing blow) isn't ''much'' worse, as far as how infinities go (though something that produces an answer involving ∞&times;∞ at some point ''could'' be considered to be far more ...interesting). That's once you get over the fact that you're dealing with mathematics involving some definition of ''ω'' or even ''ε'', and have to deal with those appropriately. [[Special:Contributions/92.23.2.228|92.23.2.228]] 17:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@@ Line 63: / Line 63: @@
 :In simpler terms: Unstoppable Force vs Immovable Object, if both of them are '''''infinitely strong and corporeal''''' - is 1) meaningless as it boils to "(+∞) + (-∞)" (Infinity minus Infinity) and is undefined, and 2) irrelevant since infinitely many waste energy from this destroys entire Universe, so it's impossible to look and determine who ultimately "won". --[[User:SMGmsgsgd|SMGmsgsgd]] ([[User talk:SMGmsgsgd|talk]]) 11:06, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
 ::Technically, that's more like two unstoppable things ''meeting from opposite directions''. The difference between something unstoppable and something unmovable might be better looked at in terms of momentum (unstoppable may be finite speed but infinite mass, unmovable is technically zero speed but still infinite mass) in which the infinities apply to the scalar elements and ''-∞'' makes no sense as an element. Though ''∞ - ∞'' may indeed come out of the comparison, not ''(+∞) + (-∞)'', and transfinite mathematics are likely to care a lot more that these are ''not'' equivalents, we're also into the realms of it being non-commutative ''and'' not reducing to "(+x) + (-x), ∴ = 0".
 ::By another treatment, the effect upon the unstoppable object is infinite (the force/dynamic-momentum/whatever of the immovable one) and the one upon the immovable object is infinite (the resistance/static-momentum/whatever of the unstoppable one) resulting in 'infinity-times-two' (whatever that means!) total disruption, compared merely with the 'infinity-esque' quantity of disruption if either an unstoppable item were to hit a movable one or an immovable one is hit by something that is stoppable.
 ::You're already in trouble (at the very least mathematical, possibly also as an incautious observer, within the technically infinite range of all secondary effects) if ''either'' element of the problem is infinitely anything... having them both being infinite (including in direct opposition, say two infinitely unstoppable items colliding, or even a glancing blow) isn't ''much'' worse, as far as how infinities go (though something that produces an answer involving ∞&times;∞ at some point ''could'' be considered to be far more ...interesting). That's once you get over the fact that you're dealing with mathematics involving some definition of ''ω'' or even ''ε'', and have to deal with those appropriately. [[Special:Contributions/92.23.2.228|92.23.2.228]] 17:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@@ Line 64: / Line 64: @@
 ::Technically, that's more like two unstoppable things ''meeting from opposite directions''. The difference between something unstoppable and something unmovable might be better looked at in terms of momentum (unstoppable may be finite speed but infinite mass, unmovable is technically zero speed but still infinite mass) in which the infinities apply to the scalar elements and ''-∞'' makes no sense as an element. Though ''∞ - ∞'' may indeed come out of the comparison, not ''(+∞) + (-∞)'', and transfinite mathematics are likely to care a lot more that these are ''not'' equivalents, we're also into the realms of it being non-commutative ''and'' not reducing to "(+x) + (-x), ∴ = 0".
 ::By another treatment, the effect upon the unstoppable object is infinite (the force/dynamic-momentum/whatever of the immovable one) and the one upon the immovable object is infinite (the resistance/static-momentum/whatever of the unstoppable one) resulting in 'infinity-times-two' (whatever that means!) total disruption, compared merely with the 'infinity-esque' quantity of disruption if either an unstoppable item were to hit a movable one or an immovable one is hit by something that is stoppable.
-::You're already in trouble (at the very least mathematical, possibly also as an incautious observer, within the technically infinite range of all secondary effects) if ''either'' element of the problem is infinitely anything... having them both being infinite (including in direct opposition, say two infinitely unstoppable items colliding, or even a glancing blow) isn't ''much'' worse, as far as how infinities go (though something that produces an answer involving ∞&mult;∞ at some point ''could'' be considered to be far more ...interesting). That's once you get over the fact that you're dealing with mathematics involving some definition of ''ω'' or even ''ε'', and have to deal with those appropriately. [[Special:Contributions/92.23.2.228|92.23.2.228]] 17:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
+::You're already in trouble (at the very least mathematical, possibly also as an incautious observer, within the technically infinite range of all secondary effects) if ''either'' element of the problem is infinitely anything... having them both being infinite (including in direct opposition, say two infinitely unstoppable items colliding, or even a glancing blow) isn't ''much'' worse, as far as how infinities go (though something that produces an answer involving ∞&times;∞ at some point ''could'' be considered to be far more ...interesting). That's once you get over the fact that you're dealing with mathematics involving some definition of ''ω'' or even ''ε'', and have to deal with those appropriately. [[Special:Contributions/92.23.2.228|92.23.2.228]] 17:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:35, 16 August 2025
Line 62:		Line 62:
	Correct me if i made mistakes. --[[User:SMGmsgsgd\|SMGmsgsgd]] ([[User talk:SMGmsgsgd\|talk]]) 09:59, 8 August 2025 (UTC)		Correct me if i made mistakes. --[[User:SMGmsgsgd\|SMGmsgsgd]] ([[User talk:SMGmsgsgd\|talk]]) 09:59, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
	:In simpler terms: Unstoppable Force vs Immovable Object, if both of them are '''''infinitely strong and corporeal''''' - is 1) meaningless as it boils to "(+∞) + (-∞)" (Infinity minus Infinity) and is undefined, and 2) irrelevant since infinitely many waste energy from this destroys entire Universe, so it's impossible to look and determine who ultimately "won". --[[User:SMGmsgsgd\|SMGmsgsgd]] ([[User talk:SMGmsgsgd\|talk]]) 11:06, 16 August 2025 (UTC)		:In simpler terms: Unstoppable Force vs Immovable Object, if both of them are '''''infinitely strong and corporeal''''' - is 1) meaningless as it boils to "(+∞) + (-∞)" (Infinity minus Infinity) and is undefined, and 2) irrelevant since infinitely many waste energy from this destroys entire Universe, so it's impossible to look and determine who ultimately "won". --[[User:SMGmsgsgd\|SMGmsgsgd]] ([[User talk:SMGmsgsgd\|talk]]) 11:06, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
		+	::Technically, that's more like two unstoppable things ''meeting from opposite directions''. The difference between something unstoppable and something unmovable might be better looked at in terms of momentum (unstoppable may be finite speed but infinite mass, unmovable is technically zero speed but still infinite mass) in which the infinities apply to the scalar elements and ''-∞'' makes no sense as an element. Though ''∞ - ∞'' may indeed come out of the comparison, not ''(+∞) + (-∞)'', and transfinite mathematics are likely to care a lot more that these are ''not'' equivalents, we're also into the realms of it being non-commutative ''and'' not reducing to "(+x) + (-x), ∴ = 0".
		+	::By another treatment, the effect upon the unstoppable object is infinite (the force/dynamic-momentum/whatever of the immovable one) and the one upon the immovable object is infinite (the resistance/static-momentum/whatever of the unstoppable one) resulting in 'infinity-times-two' (whatever that means!) total disruption, compared merely with the 'infinity-esque' quantity of disruption if either an unstoppable item were to hit a movable one or an immovable one is hit by something that is stoppable.
		+	::You're already in trouble (at the very least mathematical, possibly also as an incautious observer, within the technically infinite range of all secondary effects) if ''either'' element of the problem is infinitely anything... having them both being infinite (including in direct opposition, say two infinitely unstoppable items colliding, or even a glancing blow) isn't ''much'' worse, as far as how infinities go (though something that produces an answer involving ∞&mult;∞ at some point ''could'' be considered to be far more ...interesting). That's once you get over the fact that you're dealing with mathematics involving some definition of ''ω'' or even ''ε'', and have to deal with those appropriately. [[Special:Contributions/92.23.2.228\|92.23.2.228]] 17:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:06, 16 August 2025
Line 61:		Line 61:

	Correct me if i made mistakes. --[[User:SMGmsgsgd\|SMGmsgsgd]] ([[User talk:SMGmsgsgd\|talk]]) 09:59, 8 August 2025 (UTC)		Correct me if i made mistakes. --[[User:SMGmsgsgd\|SMGmsgsgd]] ([[User talk:SMGmsgsgd\|talk]]) 09:59, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
		+	:In simpler terms: Unstoppable Force vs Immovable Object, if both of them are '''''infinitely strong and corporeal''''' - is 1) meaningless as it boils to "(+∞) + (-∞)" (Infinity minus Infinity) and is undefined, and 2) irrelevant since infinitely many waste energy from this destroys entire Universe, so it's impossible to look and determine who ultimately "won". --[[User:SMGmsgsgd\|SMGmsgsgd]] ([[User talk:SMGmsgsgd\|talk]]) 11:06, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@@ Line 58: / Line 58: @@
 # By '''''corporeal''''', i mean: they interact with objects, and can't "phase through". If they collide with something, they crush and displace objects. And no matter how much you throw at them, they don't get damaged and don't get displaced. As such, they're infinitely durable, infinitely strong, and therefore infinitely massive. All that is assuming that they're '''absolutely, 100%''' Unstoppable and Immovable (and not merely "very strong but finite").
 # They collide with each other. They try to displace each other, but can't because they're infinitely massive. They try to crush each other, but can't because they're infinitely durable. Since efficiency of this process is not 100% and involves 2 infinitely strong objects, the waste energy (e.g. heat, sound, etc) and object's gravity ends up destroying the entire Universe, a-la [https://what-if.xkcd.com/140/ Proton Moon, Electron Earth].
-# As to what happens to Unstoppable Force and Immovable Object: this boils down into "What happens if two infinitely strong objects try to push each other in opposite directions". Both of them have same power (infinite), same mass (infinite), same energy (infinite). In turn, this boils down to "Infinity minus Infinity"; the "(+∞) + (-∞)", "(+∞) / (+∞)" and "(-∞) / (-∞)" are undefined, like "a / 0" is. Therefore, formulas for calculating collision of finite objects don't apply; instead, something incomprehensible happens - likely ripping apart Laws Of Physics themselves and crashing The Universe.
+# As to what happens to Unstoppable Force and Immovable Object: this boils down into "What happens if two infinitely strong objects try to push each other in opposite directions". Both of them have same power (infinite), same mass (infinite), same energy (infinite). In turn, this boils down to "Infinity minus Infinity"; the "(+∞) + (-∞)", "(+∞) / (+∞)" and "(-∞) / (-∞)" are undefined, like "x / 0" is. Therefore, formulas for calculating collision of finite objects don't apply; instead, something incomprehensible happens - likely ripping apart Laws Of Physics themselves and crashing The Universe.
 Correct me if i made mistakes. --[[User:SMGmsgsgd|SMGmsgsgd]] ([[User talk:SMGmsgsgd|talk]]) 09:59, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:59, 8 August 2025
Line 54:		Line 54:
	I contemplated this years ago while watching a {{w\|Newton's cradle}}, and I came to the conclusion that the irresistible force would transform into an immovable object, and the immovable object would transform into an irresistible force. But honestly, a variation of what he proposes also makes sense, that the immovable object would conduct the irresistible force and retransmit it out the other side. The {{w\|Black box}} view of the interaction would be the same either way. [[User:SammyChips\|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips\|talk]]) 20:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)		I contemplated this years ago while watching a {{w\|Newton's cradle}}, and I came to the conclusion that the irresistible force would transform into an immovable object, and the immovable object would transform into an irresistible force. But honestly, a variation of what he proposes also makes sense, that the immovable object would conduct the irresistible force and retransmit it out the other side. The {{w\|Black box}} view of the interaction would be the same either way. [[User:SammyChips\|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips\|talk]]) 20:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
	:Except an '''irresistible''' force is different from an unstoppable one: if the force is irresistible, the force must have an effect on the object. I guess I could see how retransmitting the force would be a type of effect, but it's a bit of a stretch. [[User:Not without text\|Not without text]] ([[User talk:Not without text\|talk]]) 14:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)		:Except an '''irresistible''' force is different from an unstoppable one: if the force is irresistible, the force must have an effect on the object. I guess I could see how retransmitting the force would be a type of effect, but it's a bit of a stretch. [[User:Not without text\|Not without text]] ([[User talk:Not without text\|talk]]) 14:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
		+
		+	Basically, these Unstoppable Force and Immovable Object there are '''''incorporeal'''''; they don't interact with anything. Like Neutrinos; any material object phases though them. As such, they are practically useless and pathetically weak. So i could try to predict, what happens when two '''''corporeal''''' Unstoppable Force and Immovable Object collide:
		+	# By '''''corporeal''''', i mean: they interact with objects, and can't "phase through". If they collide with something, they crush and displace objects. And no matter how much you throw at them, they don't get damaged and don't get displaced. As such, they're infinitely durable, infinitely strong, and therefore infinitely massive. All that is assuming that they're '''absolutely, 100%''' Unstoppable and Immovable (and not merely "very strong but finite").
		+	# They collide with each other. They try to displace each other, but can't because they're infinitely massive. They try to crush each other, but can't because they're infinitely durable. Since efficiency of this process is not 100% and involves 2 infinitely strong objects, the waste energy (e.g. heat, sound, etc) and object's gravity ends up destroying the entire Universe, a-la [https://what-if.xkcd.com/140/ Proton Moon, Electron Earth].
		+	# As to what happens to Unstoppable Force and Immovable Object: this boils down into "What happens if two infinitely strong objects try to push each other in opposite directions". Both of them have same power (infinite), same mass (infinite), same energy (infinite). In turn, this boils down to "Infinity minus Infinity"; the "(+∞) + (-∞)", "(+∞) / (+∞)" and "(-∞) / (-∞)" are undefined, like "a / 0" is. Therefore, formulas for calculating collision of finite objects don't apply; instead, something incomprehensible happens - likely ripping apart Laws Of Physics themselves and crashing The Universe.
		+
		+	Correct me if i made mistakes. --[[User:SMGmsgsgd\|SMGmsgsgd]] ([[User talk:SMGmsgsgd\|talk]]) 09:59, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:09, 15 May 2025
Line 53:		Line 53:

	I contemplated this years ago while watching a {{w\|Newton's cradle}}, and I came to the conclusion that the irresistible force would transform into an immovable object, and the immovable object would transform into an irresistible force. But honestly, a variation of what he proposes also makes sense, that the immovable object would conduct the irresistible force and retransmit it out the other side. The {{w\|Black box}} view of the interaction would be the same either way. [[User:SammyChips\|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips\|talk]]) 20:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)		I contemplated this years ago while watching a {{w\|Newton's cradle}}, and I came to the conclusion that the irresistible force would transform into an immovable object, and the immovable object would transform into an irresistible force. But honestly, a variation of what he proposes also makes sense, that the immovable object would conduct the irresistible force and retransmit it out the other side. The {{w\|Black box}} view of the interaction would be the same either way. [[User:SammyChips\|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips\|talk]]) 20:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
		+	:Except an '''irresistible''' force is different from an unstoppable one: if the force is irresistible, the force must have an effect on the object. I guess I could see how retransmitting the force would be a type of effect, but it's a bit of a stretch. [[User:Not without text\|Not without text]] ([[User talk:Not without text\|talk]]) 14:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 One solution was to have characters automatically "push" stationary characters out of the way, but that caused other problems. Modern MMO's such as World of Warcraft simply allow characters to pass through each other, as depicted in this xkcd comic. Our eyes fool us into "seeing" that two characters somehow slid past each other. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.228.132|172.68.228.132]] 07:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
 :Our eyes, or the programmers?  I don't have that much experience with MMO's but they probably do render it in specific way to make that effect. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 02:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
 When the two things pass through each other, at the instant where they both occupy exactly the same space, is there one object or two? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.216.159|162.158.216.159]] 08:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)