Why Immovable Object Vs Unstoppable Forces are the 51st Shade of Grey? Find The Result Inside !

Why Immovable Object Vs Unstoppable Forces are the 51st Shade of Grey? 

What results if a fixed object meets an unstoppable force? I have done a lot of research on the Internet and is one of the most popular questions on the internet. Of course, relativity clearly tells us that there is no such thing as an immovable object. But you will find it here so let's get started.

Introduction

Hi guys I am your LUCKY JOURNAL and hope you are in your best of health. Today you will find it fun to read it. Today's topic Is The Clash Between Immovable Object Meets an unstoppable force? Find The Result Inside! I am also eager to tell you, so let's get started.

Here's why: If you pick any supposedly immovable object or just something like your house or the earth, I can make it move. All I want to try to do is start to maneuver relative thereto, for instance, I'd ride a rocket, and suddenly from my perspective, I'm not moving, and therefore the earth sails by outside as motion is a relative term.

There can be no such thing as an “irresistible force” or an “immovable object” in our physical universe. They are impossible and therefore nonsensical.

An “unstoppable” object would have infinite energy. An “immovable object” would have infinite mass. Given our understanding of the universe, there is (probably) a finite amount of both mass and energy in the universe - all created by the Big Bang.

Logic

The laws of physics make no preference for the inertial reference frame of reference, so from my perspective here, I don't stir, and yet it's clear: the immovable object moves! So because of relativity, "immovable objects" cannot be. But what I think people normally MEAN by "immovable object" is something that if it's not moving, you can't make it start moving by Pushing on it.

 Consequently, not an immovable object, but an "un-acceleratable" one. Using Newton's second law, we know that an object's acceleration is equal to the total force on it divided by its mass (though you've probably seen this as F=ma). So an "un-acceleratable" object would be an object with infinite mass; an object so massive that regardless of how big the entire force F is once you divide F by m you always get zero.

 Of course, as we've said, not being able to accelerate an object doesn't necessarily mean that the object isn't moving - it just means that you can't directly change its speed - if it's not moving, then it'll stay not moving. And if it's moving at 100 miles an hour, then it'll stay moving at 100 miles per hour. 

Scientific Terms

So, what about an unstoppable force? Well, all the fundamental forces in nature are actually caused by particles (like photons or gluons gravitons) that interact with an object and change its momentum - the only way to be affected by a force is to not interact with it at all (like how electrons don't interact with gluons so they aren't subject to the strong nuclear force).

 Even light itself is an unstoppable force - every photon that hits your body changes your momentum a tiny little bit, and there's nothing you can do about it other than avoiding light altogether or become transparent. So all forces are already unstoppable but my impression is that the phrase "unstoppable force" isn't meant to imply anything about "forces" like electromagnetism or gravity, but rather, something that you simply cannot stop from barreling down on you.

 Such is an object whose quickness and swiftness cannot be changed by pushing on it. So, if by an unstoppable force we mean an object moving at a speed that can never be changed, then that means the object can not accelerate - but wait for a second, this sounds familiar! 

Content In Space

Now, since infinite mass requires infinite energy, we don't know of anything in the universe that behaves like this, not the least because it would automatically be a black hole so big that everything within the universe would already be inside it.

 But what if we ignored gravity and imagined there was an un-acceleratable object? Rigorously, first, it would be an origin of tremendous, unlimited free power and would allow us to live in a 100% happy utopian society and break the second law of thermodynamics and probably create portals and time travel, too (you can do a lot with infinite energy). 

But more importantly, if two of these infinitely massive un-acceleratable objects were moving towards each other and collided, then since definition it's not possible for the velocity of either of them to change, the only possibility that they must pass right through each other with no effect on each other at all.

Recalling

Evoking what we discovered beforehand, an unstoppable force must be an un-acceleratable object! And that means an "unstoppable force" and an "immovable object" are really just an equivalent, viewed from different reference frames! 

Hence we can say that Immovable Object Vs Unstoppable Forces is the 51st Shade of Grey.

Keywords

Immovable Object, Unstoppable forces, Clash, Content in space, Scientific terms, Logic, Irresistible force paradox, shield and spear paradox,  non-western thought, the interposition of human agency, nature, and power, the outcome...

If any query you can ask in the comments section, and your comments will be appreciated.