|
Post by Shmoie on Jun 11, 2009 23:18:26 GMT -5
Caprice: (has been tuning out during all the physics talk; suddenly tunes in as the discussion turns) Alright. As long as we're talking about real life, I'd like to restate my claim that there never has been and never will be an obstacle that is truly unbeatable. An unstoppable force, maybe. But people will always find ways to solve their problems.
|
|
|
Post by emuarti9lives on Jun 12, 2009 0:47:11 GMT -5
Knuckles: Yeah, it's called cheating. I say best way to solve this problem,<cracks knuckles> C-4.
|
|
|
Post by Bananachan on Jun 13, 2009 1:27:24 GMT -5
Carius: You can't solve everything by blowing it up, and who's to define the laws of 'cheating' anyway? Who is anyone to even define laws? Society's common knowledge of things is often sadly lacking; everyone must find their own definitions of what is 'allowed' and what is not. So, no, it's not cheating.
Angel: Regardless of how I feel about the definition of cheating, finding a way to surpass difficult problems isn't cheating; it's a demonstration of human spirit.
Kent: *flinches at appearance of Harlequin, but continues* ... Actually, sorry to say, he's right. That... one. *cough* Things can behave... in unpredictable ways.
|
|
|
Post by emuarti9lives on Jun 13, 2009 13:49:09 GMT -5
Zach: Yes, but circumventing the actual dillema in a problem is cheating. A bounce is just a way of avoiding the actually conflict between these two objects. And let me just say, a bounce, however slight or off angle or whatever, would imply that the unstoppable force has met something that can stop it, for however brief a time it takes to bounce. So a bounce is saying that the immovable object wins.
Knuckles: You can't solve everything by blowing it up, that's true. But you can solve most things by blowing them up.
|
|
|
Post by gandalfthesparkly on Jun 13, 2009 14:03:05 GMT -5
Nate: I think that blowing it up would cause quite a bit of motion, thereby moving the immovable object.
Zeke: And I think that we have to assume that in this scenario the immovable object and the unstoppable force are what they appear to be.
Max: And why can't the unstoppable force redirect before it comes to the immovable object?
|
|
kittiekat
Birch
Take my love, take my land...
Posts: 181
|
Post by kittiekat on Jun 14, 2009 0:42:35 GMT -5
Katie: I just wanna throw it out there. Newton's laws state that an object is constantly in motion even if stationary. Also a force and an object are two completely different things. So I think we need to clarify things a bit. Are we talking an unmovable object or literal force? You know like, gravity, is a force.
OOC: Thank you physics.
|
|
|
Post by Shmoie on Jul 6, 2009 23:17:08 GMT -5
Caprice: (looks grumpy and tunes out again)
OOC: Oh Caprice. XD Anyways, I was thinking of it as an object, not a force.
|
|
kittiekat
Birch
Take my love, take my land...
Posts: 181
|
Post by kittiekat on Jul 7, 2009 1:49:28 GMT -5
Katie: Then that poses another question. Are we saying that by being unmovable it isn't in motion? Because if you're saying that, this whole scenario can not work.
|
|
|
Post by emuarti9lives on Jul 7, 2009 2:06:00 GMT -5
Zach: How did I end up in Physics Class? I thought I dropped that one. (smiles and winks, getting himself a cup of coffee)
Brennan: What on earth are you talking about!? Who the blazes is Newton and what sort of law is he making that tries to govern the very elements of the universe?
CenterStage:(small smile) Ah, Sir Isaac. Another fascinating character.
|
|
|
Post by Bananachan on Jul 9, 2009 17:12:39 GMT -5
OOC: Oh, yeah. I kind of forgot that one, but now that I think of it, Christine's right. Because all particles are always moving, all objects are always in motion, so the immovable object can't technically entirely immovable. And as long as we're talking physics here, if the object is immovable as in most outside objects and forces have no effect on it, that would make it immune to, say, gravity as well. Which means that you could plausibly say that the immovable object is immune to outside forces period, which means the immovable object would win.
Carius: The unstoppable force could potentially redirect before hitting the immovable object, if another force acted on it to change its direction. But for them to meet, which I believe is the context in which this question is posed, it seems they must collide. And besides, they can't actually meet anyway, that's another law of physics, two objects can never truly touch.
|
|