What happens when an unstoppable force hits an immovable object? (free response in comment area)

The unstoppable force stops. The immovable object moves. (ok, so I'm howlingly unoriginal)

The unstoppable force passes through, deflects from, or goes around the immovable object, I guess. You didn't say the unstoppable force had an unchangeable trajectory. It could be like rushing water, relentless but flexible. I don't think there are such things as unstoppable forces and immovable objects in real life, so this is just theoretical. This reminds me of the old question of whether God can build a rock too heavy for God to lift.

the force passes through the opject, the two are not mutually exclusive.

The butter on the back of the cat spontaneously combusts.

Both are destroyed in an explosion of improbable force.

It matters on what that immovable object is. I would assume something catastrophic because it's almost impossible for neither

It passes through it and/or absorbs it and/or demolishes it.

Got my answer from Isaac Asimov: Sorry, can't happen, since it's implicit in the definition of an unstoppable force that there's no such thing as an immovable object, and vice versa.

neither is possible. ** Sorry, I'm a realist I guess; this kind of question annoys me, it seems pointless. I mean no offense.

boom

An unlimited quantity of energy is freed (or not...

That is a non-question. The solution is undefined.

I agree with vanadium, sorta... Same thing that happens when you put buttered toast on the back of a cat and drop it... :)

An explosion...I guess. Or the unstoppable force would change direction when it bouces off the immovable object.

stillness

Je,je... I've read this question answer already. And the response is: it's a paradox! The two things you are saying can't exist at same time! *** KenShingo: You're really pathetic if you want all people here answering the same as you. In this case, there is no need for a such site! IMHO, this question is a THEORIC paradox, and I tought this even before knowing that such answer annoy you.

People create a survey out of it :)

The immovable object pushes back with the same force, but the "unstoppable" force is still pushing, makeing it still the same force, it's just that no NET force is there.

Stop giving answers like "unstoppable force that there's no such thing as an immovable object".

That trivializes the question, and that's what really annoys me about some of the people here, they just love doing that.

Come on people, it's theoretical, just like absolute zero and the ideal gas.
Jaime:Ok, I'll make it a note to nitpick at every survey you make. And I just hate it when people just destroy questions like that. BTW, I think those Kaboom answers are a riot.

The same thing that happens when you cross the streams in ghostbusters

The Big Bang! Enemas for everyone!

You get Camille Paglia on a good day.

the unstoppable force bounces off of the immovable object and continues on in a different direction

What?

The unstoppable force has the potential to move the immovable object, but in the same sence, the immovable object has the potential to stop the unstoppable force. Therefore this question is dumb and has no signifigant meaning in pettiless life amongst a world of so many ideas that my brain hardly has a chance to think on its own. Therefore, I would have to put..."All hell would break lose"

Yeah, that ghostbusters thing.

dumb question, you can't have both by definition

a new spice girls record is released

the two must sit down and debate which one of them does not exist. KenShingo: that's a common misinterpretation of Newton's 3rd law. the action/equal+opposite reaction force pair are always acting on two different objects, and can therefor never cancel each other out

It's deflected :)

Beats me...I'm not hanging around any area that has an unstoppable force and an immovable object in it. It could be bad...*squish*

An eternal struggle which is impossible to see from our short vantage in the universe. So for you and me, absolutely nothing. For the force and object, absolutely nothing; I did write an eternal struggle.

You have to revise your assumptions.

The unstoppable force goes over the immovable, just because it changes trajectory doesn't mean it stops.

they stop and write a survey about it before continuing.

nothing, because niether exists... the two go out for tacos? the universe ends? you pop a blood vessel trying to conceive of something so silly?

something's gotta give (and it's an irresistable force, silly).

Both cease to exist

A physical paradox would be created and they would both explode on impact.

it bounces. (the traditional formulation of this is "irresistable force," which would be trickier to answer; thanks for making it easy...).

The universe explodes in a puff of illogic.

We all go home early

Ka-BOOM?? Actually I have no idea. I'm just guessing.

It's impoosible for both to coexist.

creation of this existence... if, of course, that time is the unstoppable force and space is the immovable object.