|
||
 |
poss says | |||
| Truly an epic clash for the ages, Two juggernaughts of theoretical Physics entwined in an inevitable grudge match. So, who wins? only you can decide with your votes! |
||||
| Total Topic Karma: 11 | - More by this Author | |||
 |
zenmonk says |
|
|||
| The cypress tree in the yard. | |||||
| - Author's History - 14 September, 2007 | |||||
| Sample says |
|
||||
| Interesting. Wait... quantify 'object'. |
|||||
| - Author's History - 15 September, 2007 | |||||
|
|
| Sample says |
|
||||
| (that's me, sorry, can't login) ^^ -Ati |
|||||
| - Author's History - 15 September, 2007 | |||||
|
poss says |
|
|||
Well I think it would be better if you defined object for yourselves  |
|||||
| - Author's History - 17 September, 2007 | |||||
|
zenmonk says |
|
|||
| Since motion is relative, movement cannot be adequately defined. An immovable object (set $object == coffee_cup) is only immovable in relation to something_else (set $something_else == kitchen_table). OK, so a coffee cup superglued (TM) to the kitchen table....The coffee cup is immovable in relation to the kitchen table, but a sufficiently buff toddler can move the table, and therefore the cup, in relation to everything else _but_ the table. In short; define 'immovable'. Mu |
|||||
| - Author's History - 18 September, 2007 | |||||
 |
Lacey says |
|
|||
well i'm an unstoppable force & an immovable object. In that case can I vote for both???  haha jk... that was dumb. |
|||||
| - Author's History - 18 September, 2007 | |||||
|
poss says |
|
|||
| Immovable relative to the unstoppable force. | |||||
| - Author's History - 18 September, 2007 | |||||
|
zenmonk says |
|
|||
| Any object that resists will forever be immovable in relation to force applied. Unless the object is catapulted away from the site of the application of force, the force will always be 'located' where it is being applied to the object. | |||||
| - Author's History - 19 September, 2007 | |||||
|
poss says |
|
|||
| so your saying the force would stop? | |||||
| - Author's History - 19 September, 2007 | |||||
|
Lacey says |
|
|||
| it cant stop. its unstoppable! | |||||
| - Author's History - 20 September, 2007 | |||||
|
zenmonk says |
|
|||
| I'm thinking in terms of billiards. When the cue ball strikes the 8 ball, the force of the cue ball imparts kinetic energy to the 8 ball, which then rolls _away_ from the source of the force...force is no longer being applied to the 8 ball, yet the force continues along with the cue ball. If we make the 8 ball immovable, the cue ball will likely bounce off of it and exert its force elsewhere. There has been virtually no exertion of force in that the cue ball retains the same net energy, but its motion has been redirected. I imagine what really happens is that the cue ball exhausts all of its force into the 8 ball such that the cue ball momentarily comes to a stop, then the 8 ball imparts the energy back into the cue ball, which then bounces back, or ricochets in another direction. (I'm not schooled in physics, but I think what I've said is in the ballpark.) If we make the cue ball an irresistable force meeting an ordinary 8 ball, eventually equilibrium will be reached such that the 8 ball is carried along by the wave front (or whatever) of the irresistable force. At that point the 8 ball (an object resisting force) becomes immovable in relation to the force applied. From the perspective of the force, the 8 ball is not moving, just as a beam of light would appear stationary to an observer travelling a parallel course at light speed. (Yes, I know that the observer would technically never see the beam of light, but intuitively the example works for most lay-people) That's all I was saying in my last post. The force does not stop for the reason Lacey cites. Being unstoppable, it is by definition moving. And since the immovable object is by definition immovable...when the irresistable force meets the immovable object, the irresistable force changes direction. "Ah, but then isn't the immovable object 'resisting' the irresistable force?" you say? If the immovable object is by definition immovable, then it is not resisting per se, it is just performing according to its nature and natural law. All other ordinary objects would resist due to inertia at first, but eventually succumb to the irresistable force, because it's irresistable. Semantics. Damn you pOss, how did you draw me into this?!? |
|||||
| - Author's History - 20 September, 2007 | |||||
|
poss says |
|
|||
| I imagine what really happens is that the cue ball exhausts all of its force into the 8 ball such that the cue ball momentarily comes to a stop, then the 8 ball imparts the energy back into the cue ball, which then bounces back, or ricochets in another direction. Sounds like the force momentarily stops before changing direction  |
|||||
| - Author's History - 20 September, 2007 | |||||
|
zenmonk says |
|
|||
| Yep, that example had an immovable 8 ball and an ordinary, run-of-the-mill dime-a-dozen force. Guess I was kinda thinking out loud in that last post. Excuse please. | |||||
| - Author's History - 21 September, 2007 | |||||
|
|
