What would happen if a RESISTABLE force hit a MOVEABLE object?
611973
*******************************************************\n*It's not a paradox to begin w/!!!!  It's perspective.*\n*******************************************************\n\nThe question is "immovable object & irresistable force." It's a perspective thing. They do exist. The problem lies in the fact you're on the outside looking in on the system. \n\nWhat is the irresistable force? There IS only one. Gravity.\n\nWhat is your immovable object? Pick something. Anything.\n\nNow drop it. From your perspective the object falls to the ground. BUT what happens from the object's perspective? The ground jumps up and hits it, while the object remained still. It's your basic car window perspective question.\n\nIf using large enough objects, it can become a "matter shake."
641452
opposite force being applied
501046
the abject that couldnt be stopped would go through the object that couldnt be moved?
366537
Trick question?  Frozen rubber hitting plastic or wood doesn't work very well.  Think small, solid object flying at 100 mph.
585829
It would act like it was on a spring always being pulled toward the middle of the earth and the force acting on it gets smaller as the ball gets closer to the center.  So, like any system where the force is proportional to the negative of displacement (f=-kx), you get harmonic motion.  If you add air resistance, you get damped harmonic motion and the ball eventually ends up at the center of the earth.\n\nOne interesting image from the 'no friction' model is that if you dropped the ball from 4 feet over the hole, it would go exactly 4 feet out the other side and continue like that forever.
505249
no.its the force produced due to the movement of other particles(electrons).so..
1094026
it is just like understanding a hyperbola. if you throw a stone in air it will feeling a force until it reaches the highest altitiude then it falls down as a projectile . the path traced by it may be in vector quantities
212614
the wall stops it and the ground starts it again. if the spinning force is greater than the stopping force it would continue to spin after hitting the wall.
141232
i think it can freeze the motors inside and damage them, if it frezes then you would not be able to move them
991201
One of two things will happen:\n\n1) The so-called unmovable object will be moved.\n2) The so-called unstoppable oject will be stopped.\n\nThis existance of an unstoppable object precludes the existance of an unmovable one, and vice versa. Of course, it's likely that neither one exists anyway so the question is pointless.
819927
All objects react as if there were only a single force acting upon them. Let's say an object on your desk had a force of ten newtons pushing it to the east. Let's call that force positive 10 newtons. According to Newton's second law, it would accelerate (pick up speed) moving in an eastward direction. It had a single force acting upon it and since there was no opposing force we say that it was an unbalanced force. Now say the same object had another force of 10 newtons acting on it in a westward direction. Lets call that force negative 10 newtons. Now we have two forces and since they are equal but have opposite signs the algebraic sum is zero ([+10N] + [-10N] = 0). We now have balanced forces - equal but opposite. Remember I said that all objects react as if there were only one force acting upon them? Even though there are two forces acting in opposite directions on the object on your desk, that object reacts as if there were only one force acting upon it - a force of zero newtons. BTW, that sum force is called the resultant. So according to Newton's first law since a zero force is applied to the object it will remain at rest. In short, unbalanced forces result in movement, balanced forces don't.
327812
you would get electrocuted plain and simple...you wouldn't go flying through the air unless it was a really high voltage...I'm pretty sure.
860846
Force = 60 N.\nMass = 3 kg\nTime = 10 s\n\nAn object's change in momentum, Δp equals the Impulse, I on the object. I = ∫F dt = Ft. \n\nΔp = I = Ft = (60 N) * 10 s = 600 Ns\n\nAssuming the object started at rest,\np (initial) = mv = (3 kg) (0 m/s) = 0 Ns\nΔp = 600 Ns\np (final) = 600 Ns\n\np (final) = mv = (3 kg) * v(final)\nv(final) = (600 Ns) / (3 kg) = 200 m/s\nΔv = v(final) - v (initial) = 200 m/s - 0 m/s = 200 m/s\n\nThe object's change in momentum was 600 Ns (kg * m/s).\nThe object's change in velocity, assuming it started from rest, was 200 m/s.
626818
I am working at a Research Insitute in Artificial Intelligence. We are now researching a brand new technology that may one day erradicate the sedentarism. The unification of matter principle has been used to create a volatile spherical ball a few centimeters in diameter, which can penetrate every kind of material object (think of it as a radiation coordinated though satelite). This has only been experienced on mice, but one day such an object will move with speeds of up to 3m/second on the shorest way towards you. Of course, a pain ensues uppon contact (and maybe some minor tissue damage), so this would make people more active - trying to avoid the sphere.
83798
no, it would hurt, but the air hitting it would not cause it to go that fast.
698221
Silly...  The point your instructor is making is that barring any impeding object (air) in the horizontal(to the ground) velocity vector will remain the same (First Law of Motion).  Of course his use of never is inappropriate.  Any thrown object will eventually fall, go into orbit, or escape earth's gravity and fly into space.  At which point the object might encounter another impeding object...\nI recommend that you suggest to your instructor that he reword the question. (Forget trying to get the point).  Explain to him that Newton's First Law states "An object at rest tends to stay in rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion in a straight line at constant speed unless acted upon by an outside force."...  Notice Newton himself refrains from the use of NEVER and uses the unless clause.  Explain to the instructor that you were using the UNLESS in the 1st Law.  That is to say he did not tell you to ignore gravity or any other impeding objects.  So, tell the instructor that you now understand what he was asking BUT s/he would be better off either taking out the NEVER (which Newton would not have used) with "until it hits the ground."\n\nAddition:\nGiven the Q as a true/false statement and understnading that the question is asking about Newton's First Law and knowing that even Newton says "nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur statum illum mutare." which means "unless acted upon by an external and unbalanced force."  I would say FALSE! \n(The word "never" should not have been used).
91362
It's tranferred to heat/friction from the impact