paradox time!!! lets destroy the world.

Post your thoughts on these, if they blow your brain out of your head I want pics....(lol paradox)

(paradox)What happens when an immovable object is met by an unstoppable force?
Division by zero.(also a paradox)

let me explain the paradox (plural) in this case.

"Q1" is assuming an immovable object and an unstoppable force exist. while neither do this is an invalid statement.
"A1" is assuming that 0 has a value which it does not and somthing without a value whether positive or negative. this is like trying to dive a pie into a negative infinie amount of pieces, which would not divide but multiply infinitly, exponentialy expanding the pie till it filled the whole universe (another paradox) assuming the universe is finite.(fixes the paradox)

(paradox) What happens when two unstoppable forces collide?
Again, as in "Q1" an unstoppable force does not exist, assuming it did (paradox) two forces that collided would ultimitely be negated again proving that there is no such thing as an unstoppable force because if they are both unstoppable they have the same force velicity and mass. when two objects of equal density velocity and mass collide the stop in place, thus rendering both unstoppable forces and efficiently stopped.

on the other hand being unstoppable in deffinition, one could assume they would not stop at the collision but pass through eathother leaving in there wake a space of emptyness creating a black hole. which in its self is an unstoppable force (paradoxes all around)

You might be interested


Reply Attach
  • 6

    technically you never said it was unstoppable in a given direction
    it could have just bounced and went on in the other direction
    zzz - paradox time!!! lets destroy the world.

    • hightec
    • November 2, 2010, 1:43 pm
    by saying it is an unstoppable force it implies that it will continue on in one direction for all time.
    - 24paperwings December 24, 2010, 6:00 pm
       /ʌnˈstɒpəbəl/ Show Spelled[uhn-stop-uh-buhl] Show IPA
    that cannot be stopped or surpassed; unbeatable: an unstoppable ball team.

    it dosn't say anything about direction
    - hightec December 25, 2010, 5:08 pm
    In order to change direction the unstoppable object must stop for a fraction of a second. If this object is unstoppable then it will never stop moving. Therefore the object cannot change direction. This is basic physics. Direction is not in the definition because the word is not directly connected to the unstoppable force/immovable object paradox. By knowing these two pieces to be true we can rightly say that this paradox remains a paradox.

    Edit: My apologies for this being 3months late but I've had a lot on my plate lately and tbh I completely forgot about it. So here is cat and rat stealing foodz together.
    - 24paperwings April 13, 2011, 11:38 am
    an object can be moving in a circle. thats changing direction yet it never stops
    - bufus101 April 13, 2011, 4:37 pm
    No thats not thats just a continuous curve. Think of this as a curve ball in baseball the ball will always continue to move towards the catcher and the mitt. It doesn't change direction it just has a spin that is on it causing it to move a certain way. Unless the bat (immovable object) can hit it and send it in another direction then it will stay and unstoppable force.
    - 24paperwings April 13, 2011, 4:45 pm
    this is true. but what if an object with a greater velocity hits the traveling object from behind at a slight angle? the object isnt being stopped, its actually being pushed faster, but also its changing direction
    - bufus101 April 13, 2011, 5:09 pm
    this is true but it would be considered an altered course not only that but in order for this to happen the unstoppable force must be traveling at a slower velocity. Therefore we can determine that this unstoppable force is only gaining momentum and becoming stronger. But we can also assume that this object is the ultimate force in the universe and only gains strength the longer time goes on therefore this other object would instantly be neutralized as it will have no effect on the unstoppable force since this is already to strong to move.
    - 24paperwings April 13, 2011, 5:33 pm
    well now the problem is the actual definition of an unstoppable force. it doesnt have to be increasing in velocity to be unstoppable
    - bufus101 April 13, 2011, 5:35 pm
    no but we can safely assume that in order to be an unstoppable force it must be gaining power at all times because it is constantly in need of energy. the way I see it unless this force is constantly gaining power then it is no longer unstoppable this means that something stronger can be built to stop it. This is the basic foundation of this paradox. Both object are constantly trying to out do each other and are indeed doing so but at the same time being surpassed by each other. This allows us to assume that each is constantly gaining power and therefore they have an infinite amount of power which grows exponentially.
    - 24paperwings April 13, 2011, 5:46 pm
    Win ^^^
    - bufus101 April 13, 2011, 5:55 pm
    Thank you and hear is dinosaur smoking a pipe :D

    - 24paperwings April 13, 2011, 6:00 pm
    double win =D
    - bufus101 April 13, 2011, 6:02 pm
    No no no it's not double wining. It's BI-WINNING
    - 24paperwings April 13, 2011, 6:04 pm
    this comment feed is too dam long lol. but yes. bi-winning =)
    - bufus101 April 13, 2011, 6:10 pm
  • 2

    If God is all powerful, can he create a rock he can't move?

    BUT if he can't move it... he's not all powerful.

    • Madstyx
    • October 28, 2010, 3:19 pm
  • 2

    If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does anyone give a shit?

    If a tree falls in a forest, and only a woman is around to hear it, why is a forest in the kitchen?
    - imfrikknbad November 15, 2010, 4:15 pm
  • 1

    lets do this ShiT!

  • 1

    how can something be new and improved?

    By defenition, for something to be new, it has to be of originality, whereas to be improved, there must be a forerunner. For improvement to happen, a previous model must exist upon which to improve. As mentioned earlier, new is not a previous, but the first or of originality. The new and improved PARADOX. Which is another paradox, but then it's not a new paradox, so then it's not new, but improved, yet then the improved is new, but not.... *head explodes into candy*

  • 1


  • 1

    The statement below is true.
    The statement above is false.

    • Disco
    • October 28, 2010, 3:17 pm
    - Mocahking November 15, 2010, 3:48 pm
    one of them must be wrong. unless you assume both are telling the truth.
    - decrotie2004 April 13, 2011, 11:06 am
    If one of them is a true statement, then whichever one is supposedly untrue would have to abide by the limits of the true statement. If the first statement is true, that would have to mean that the seconds statement is false, however, since the first statement says that the second one is true, then it obviously has to be true. But at the same time, the second statement, being true, says that the first statement is false, and if the first statement is false, then that would mean that the second statement is also false. This pattern will continuously repeat with no end until the universe explodes.
    - Disco April 13, 2011, 4:13 pm
  • 1

    I love you guys.... *tear*

  • 1

    xooysk - paradox time!!! lets destroy the world.

  • 1

    head explode

    • mofosho
    • November 15, 2010, 3:45 pm
  • 1

    What happens when Pinocchio says "My nose will grow NOW"?

    that has stumped me for so long it's not even funny ;)
    - Pyutchy8011 November 15, 2010, 4:51 pm
  • 1

    How can something be NEW AND IMPROVED, if its new there is nothing to base the improvement on, if its improved, then it must not be new.

  • 1

    If Edward has no heart beat and no blood because he is dead, therefore no body heat so his seed would be dead anyway, how does he get a hard on to get Bella pregnant??

    Also, if all things must come to an end, what's beyond the universe?

    • SuDoku
    • April 13, 2011, 11:15 am
  • 1

    If it is impossible for a logical statement to be logical, would it be illogical, or logically logically illogical, or...

  • 1

    ponokio - paradox time!!! lets destroy the world.

  • 1

    i like using the dick and jane paradox against religious folks.

  • 1

    if you were to create a wormhole through time going back exactly 1 minute, and you stood in front of it with a pistol for a minute. if you were to then stand behind the wormhole looked through it and saw yourself, and then shot your self, you would not have been alive to shoot yourself createing a paradox as you will have died and not been able to shoot yourself.

    These are fun :)

    but if you didnt get it here you go

    • BEASTY
    • April 13, 2011, 5:18 pm
Related Posts