They are paradoxes. The apparent paradox arises because it rests on two premises—that there exist such things as irresistible forces and immovable objects—which cannot both be true at once. If there exists an irresistible force, it follows logically that there cannot be any such thing as an immovable object, and vice versa. Most thing they are separate entities but they arent
The two objects would actually collide then move backwards at the same speed as previously. If a force is truly unstoppable then there is no really immovable/unaccelerated object (or the force wouldn't be stopped!) - And vice versa. They cannot both exist in the same realm or space. There coexistence is illogical, it might really just that simple.
Another answer. All forces are already unstoppable. So my 2nd answer will be immovable object. Immovable object it is not a thing that you can't move. If thats the preference, it would be unaccelerated object.
Munch, that's like saying 'Can God make a rock heavier than he can carry'? Awesome question, impossible answer. Good forum topic!!!! Gets the brain thinking!!!! I think Bacon won though.....
The definetion of an unstopible force is a force that's momentem can not be changed...the definetion of an immovable object is an object who despite what force you put in can not have its momentum changed causing it to move....meaning both are the same...and sense boths momentums can not be changed if they were to ever collide...by laws of physics they would mearly pass throuh
There is a YouTube video explaining this. Im pretty sure the outcome was that they are both the same thing. So, I win right?