Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 50

Thread: 2. Is this really a paradox “irresistible force meets an immovable object"

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    17

    2. Is this really a paradox “irresistible force meets an immovable object"

    Again more mad uttering's from a novice full if's, but's and a lot of maybe's


    a) I have listened to many learned friends tell me how it is impossible for both these things to exist both an irresistible force and immovable object, But I find fault in their opinion and believe they should be looking at this from a relativistic point of perception.

    b) If we look at this paradox from a relativistic viewpoint, as in a force which we can not stop, slow down or speed up relative to ourselves then the answer is time .we may be able to alter space-time between two objects but the time relative to each object we can not change meaning the speed which they travel through time at which is a fixed unchangable constant, thus my irresistible force is time but not space-time.

    c) Now we come to the immovable object, this at first seems to be a object of theory as all things within the universe move right down to the quantum level nothing is fixed, but is this a case of cant see the wood for the tree’s yes there is nothing within the universe which fills this roll but if we take a step back the universe itself fits the bill rather nicely, we may move within the universe but the universe itself can not be moved so it becomes my immovable object

    d) So humor me for a bit lets think about time or as we understand it as space time in the modern age, but what if this was not always the case and at one point in past before the Big bang it was a single force we know that other forces have changed why not time, a force of time separate from space now we know at one time the whole universe was a super dense point so what if space was an attribute of this super dense point rather than being connected to time but locked and concentrated in this point of super density .



    So My train of thought leads me to this odd conclusion , time has always exsisted as a force traveling through a higher demonsional arena as it moved through infinty it was and is an unstoppable force but every so often the force would and does collide with these super dense points.

    The force of time can not be stoped but nethier can the super dense points be moved so each has to pass through each other I believe time absorbs the attribute of space and in some way and the super dense point becomes mutlidimensional allowing time( space time) to expand through these dimensions as it travels,maybe even the accelerated expansion we see in the universe today may even be caused by time(space time’s) interaction with these other dimensions as it expands through it over extend timelines.

    So I think there would be no paradox when the irressistible force meets the immovable object , they would just pass through each other (*) releaseing a staggering amount of energy and the laws that would govern this interaction would niether be just quantum the land of the small and or relativiy the land of the big we would need a third set of laws which would govern the land of the giants


    (*)or maybe the universe expands in and through the movement/force of time but within itself on a dimensional level and maybe the huge size of the universe we see today is really an illusion of time and our perception of movement through it.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    15,801
    I didn't see a question mark. Oh, there's the question. Your topic sentence is:

    Is this really a paradox “irresistible force meets an immovable object"
    No. It's not a paradox. It doesn't contradict itself. The items do not exist -- as words are normally used.

    A lot of what you wrote by way of explanation looks like impenetrable word salad, phrases such as "the force of time" or "it moved through infinity". It looks more like Against-the-Mainstream claims than a question about mainstream astronomy. Maybe you should look into claiming a new physics in that section.
    0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...
    Skepticism enables us to distinguish fancy from fact, to test our speculations. --Carl Sagan

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,784
    Most, if not all, paradoxes are semantical in nature, not physical.
    (If there were real paradoxes the universe might disappear in a puff of logic.)

    You have to think about what the words irresistible and immovable mean.

    Your friends were right.
    The question: What happens if a irresistible force meets an immovable object is nonsensical.

    So I think there would be no paradox when the irresistible force meets the immovable object...

    There is your problem, what is a irresistible force and what is a immovable object?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,307
    Hmmm... The object would absorb the force but be annhialated by it.

    it doesn't violate the statement, the force isn't resisted, only converted into (another form of) energy, and the object isn't moved, but converted into energy, since it is no longer an object, it is no longer immovable. I wouldn't like to be anywere close though, such things are best viewed from another universe...

    Of course, in the real world the things would probably just collapse under their own gravity and be two black holes long before thinking about getting together for a fight...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander View Post
    Is this really a paradox “irresistible force meets an immovable object"

    That's pretty much a word game. It's like saying someone is alive and dead at the same time, or your glass of water is freezing cold and boiling hot at the same time, or your car engine is running and stopped at the same time.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by 01101001 View Post
    The items do not exist.
    Maybe they dont exsist within the universe but are external to it that was my point and it would not be a new form of physics because it would be external to it as physics is a production of the big bang a rule of rules that defines how objects act within the explosion which at current we are still in the middle of.

    we all agree and so does physics that the universe was a super dense point at one time in the past And if so it would have been immovable, and you can not alter the speed at which you travel through time so time is the irresistible force if you can explain to me how we can move the universe or stop or change the speed at which i travel through time as in 60sec a minute I would love to discuss it

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander View Post
    So I think there would be no paradox when the irressistible force meets the immovable object , they would just pass through each other (*) releaseing a staggering amount of energy and the laws that would govern this interaction would niether be just quantum the land of the small and or relativiy the land of the big we would need a third set of laws which would govern the land of the giants.
    I think the reason this proposition has met with sort of a cool reception here is that scientists are used to pretty precise use of language, but you are asking about issues that are hard to frame in scientific terms. Nevertheless, I think you have some interesting insights here-- and I agree with you that it is a bit uninteresting to dismiss the paradox as "not making sense". What they really mean is, it does not make precise sense, framed in scientific terms, but in somewhat more philosophical terms that underlie scientific discovery, there could be some sense there indeed.

    Basically, it sounds like you are suggesting that the confrontation between an irresistible force and an immovable object is a universe-creating event, whereas TrAI sees it in opposite terms as an annihilation event. Perhaps there is not so much distance between these possibilities after all, as annihilation of one could be creation of something else. Either way, it's certainly an "out-of-the-box" event of some import, moreso than a paradox or a meaningless event worthy of prompt dismissal. As little as we know scientifically about the origin of our universe, I wouldn't leave any insight off the table.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    17

    Thumbs up cheers

    Thanks ken, Yes I know I am scientifically illiterate and mathematically as well I am not trying to ruffle feathers or invent new science I was always taught before you ask a question try to answer it yourself through deduction, so my questions are always posed as theories of such and when I say to people like 01101001 I would love to discuss it I mean it sincerely all I want to do is understand.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    14,315
    The only irrestable force in the universe that's possible would be the sum total of all energy, including all mass converted to energy.

    The only immovable object in the universe that's possible would be the sum total of all mass, including all energy converted to mass.

    Obviously, you can have one or the other, but not both. Thus, the situation isn't possible.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    15,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander View Post
    I was always taught before you ask a question try to answer it yourself through deduction, so my questions are always posed as theories of such and when I say to people like 01101001 I would love to discuss it I mean it sincerely all I want to do is understand.
    Why don't you make your extreme tentativeness apparent? I couldn't tell. It sounded like you were convinced of your own non-mainstream ideas and were looking to promote them. It's a common subterfuge and/or mistake of non-mainstream-idea proponents to come to the Q&A section to assert their ideas as facts, perhaps to avoid being challenged.

    I think you'll be better off and get more quickly to the point, and efficiently use the BAUT members as resources, if you ask specific well constructed questions. If you just ramble on about what you think, especially if it was as opaque as some of the above, you're going to get a lot of people trying to figure out what you mean.

    Just ask the question here. What do you want to know, precisely? It's the point of Q&A.

    Please, if you must put your questions in the form of statements, always indicate that you are not asserting these ideas as facts. Label speculation. Describe how little you are convinced of your own words. But, still, try to ask clear questions.

    I hope that helps you.

    Many people come to BAUT to learn, and some of them will may assume assertions like you were making are facts, or at least well founded in some sort of theory.

    Thanks for keeping them in mind in the future.
    0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...
    Skepticism enables us to distinguish fancy from fact, to test our speculations. --Carl Sagan

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    6,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander View Post
    Thanks ken, Yes I know I am scientifically illiterate and mathematically as well I am not trying to ruffle feathers or invent new science I was always taught before you ask a question try to answer it yourself through deduction, so my questions are always posed as theories of such and when I say to people like 01101001 I would love to discuss it I mean it sincerely all I want to do is understand.
    There was an old song about this back in the '50s:

    "When an irresistible force such as you,
    Meets an old immovable object like me,
    You can bet, as sure as you li-i-i-ive;
    Somethin's gotta give
    Somethin's gotta give
    Somethin's gotta give"

    - Lyrics as delivered by Ella Fitzgerald

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    14,782
    All forces are irresistible. There are no immoveable objects.

    Apply any force to anything, and it will move.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,726
    Quote Originally Posted by mugaliens View Post
    The only irresistible force in the universe that's possible would be the sum total of all energy, including all mass converted to energy.

    The only immovable object in the universe that's possible would be the sum total of all mass, including all energy converted to mass.

    Obviously, you can have one or the other, but not both. Thus, the situation isn't possible.
    The big bang?

    Maybe the point Alexander was making.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,726

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    All forces are irresistible. There are no immovable objects.

    Apply any force to anything, and it will move.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    Relative to what?

    At the point of "infinite" density the "big bang" it would take an infinite force to move it, no?

    Then define movement, expansion springs to mind.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    14,782
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root
    All forces are irresistible. There are no immovable objects.

    Apply any force to anything, and it will move.
    Relative to what?
    Whatever is convenient.

    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    At the point of "infinite" density the "big bang" it would take an
    infinite force to move it, no?
    To move what?

    If you are talking about moving everything in the Universe,
    then where does the force come from? Outside the Universe???

    The density is of no consequence in this conundrum.

    If the Universe is finite, then it would not take infinite force to
    move the whole thing. If the Universe is infinite, then "the whole
    thing" is a string of words that has no meaning.

    If you apply a force to anything, it will move. If you can't get
    to a thing in order to apply a force to it, you won't be able to
    move it.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Longmont, CO
    Posts
    3,490
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    Relative to what?

    At the point of "infinite" density the "big bang" it would take an infinite force to move it, no?

    Then define movement, expansion springs to mind.
    It doesn't matter what it is relative to. Acceleration is not relative. Apply any force, no matter how small, to any object, and it will accelerate. Therefore, all forces are irresistible and no object is immovable.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    17
    @ 01101001
    Look I do understand the sentiments of written/typed words can be misconstrued, but I thought the first line of the first post made that clear “Again more mad uttering's from a novice full if's, but's and a lot of maybe's” but I will try to express it a little better in future, and if I am wrong by all means explain why but short three words answer really do not cut it . So I could also say the reverse of you


    Why don't you make your extreme tentativeness apparent? I couldn't tell. It sounded like you were convinced of your own non-mainstream ideas and were looking to promote them. It's a common subterfuge and/or mistake of non-mainstream-idea proponents to come to the Q&A section to assert their ideas as facts, perhaps to avoid being challenged.
    The total opposite I am here to be challenged, my perception of reality is individual and maybe as a bumbling amateur I might see things others don’t but even if the ideas, theories and conjectures I put forward are wrong they still merit a valid response

    Just ask the question here. What do you want to know, precisely? It's the point of Q&A.

    Please, if you must put your questions in the form of statements, always indicate that you are not asserting these ideas as facts. Label speculation. Describe how little you are convinced of your own words. But, still, try to ask clear questions.
    Well the question IS in the title “Is this really a paradox “irresistible force meets an immovable object" my post below is what I think on the matter not a statement of fact just My conclusion.

    And you still have not addressed my reply of yesterday on why i do believe these objects exist.

    @Sam 5
    Thanks for the response ..I think

    @Jeff root, mugaliens & cji
    yes internal to the universe I agree, but I am talking externally before the big bang

    @cosmocrazy
    Yes I am but I was trying to avoid saying it to much in case 01101001 throws stones at me

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,726

    Thumbs up

    I don't disagree with you Jeff

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    To move what?
    If you are talking about moving everything in the Universe,
    then where does the force come from? Outside the Universe???
    The point Alexander was making is that time is the force.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    The density is of no consequence in this conundrum.

    If the Universe is finite, then it would not take infinite force to
    move the whole thing. If the Universe is infinite, then "the whole
    thing" is a string of words that has no meaning.
    neither has the term in the OP. "Irresistible meets immovable".

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    If you apply a force to anything, it will move. If you can't get
    to a thing in order to apply a force to it, you won't be able to
    move it.
    Yes.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,726

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by cjl View Post
    It doesn't matter what it is relative to. Acceleration is not relative. Apply any force, no matter how small, to any object, and it will accelerate. Therefore, all forces are irresistible and no object is immovable.
    Yes, within space-time as we know it. Alexander was talking about at the beginning, The BB.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    17
    @cosmocrazy
    correct again

    @cjl
    you agree with me that without space-time an object cannot move so if space-time was created at the instant of the big-bang then before that there was no time or space so the volume of the super dense point was immovable and always would be unless you add at least a single force of time before the big bang because no big bang no begining of space-time.

    space time really does not apply as it was created in the instant of the big bang so it could not have caused the big bang beacuse it is a product or consequence of it.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    14,782
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander View Post
    without space-time an object cannot move so if space-time was
    created at the instant of the big-bang then before that there was
    no time or space so the volume of the super dense point was
    immovable...
    You contradicted yourself three times in that short snippet:

    Without space-time, objects could not exist, so it is contradictory
    to say "without space-time" and yet have "an object".

    If time was created at the instant of the Big Bang, then there was
    no "before that". It is a logical contradiction.

    If space was created at the instant of the Big Bang, then there
    was no "volume" before that. It is a logical contradiction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander View Post
    ...and always would be unless you add at least a single force of time...
    Time is not a force. What did you mean by "force of time"?

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    14,319
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander View Post
    Maybe they dont exsist within the universe but are external to it that was my point and it would not be a new form of physics because it would be external to it as physics is a production of the big bang a rule of rules that defines how objects act within the explosion which at current we are still in the middle of.
    I don't think changing the domain helps your case in the least. Where ever you posit the immoveable object and the irresistable force to exist, they must meet the criteria for being defined as such, by whatever rules are in force in that domain. Because the two, as described, are mutually exclusive, at least one of them must fail to meet those criteria.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    I think the reason this proposition has met with sort of a cool reception here is that scientists are used to pretty precise use of language, but you are asking about issues that are hard to frame in scientific terms. Nevertheless, I think you have some interesting insights here-- and I agree with you that it is a bit uninteresting to dismiss the paradox as "not making sense". What they really mean is, it does not make precise sense, framed in scientific terms, but in somewhat more philosophical terms that underlie scientific discovery, there could be some sense there indeed.

    Basically, it sounds like you are suggesting that the confrontation between an irresistible force and an immovable object is a universe-creating event, whereas TrAI sees it in opposite terms as an annihilation event. Perhaps there is not so much distance between these possibilities after all, as annihilation of one could be creation of something else. Either way, it's certainly an "out-of-the-box" event of some import, moreso than a paradox or a meaningless event worthy of prompt dismissal. As little as we know scientifically about the origin of our universe, I wouldn't leave any insight off the table.

    Mechanics: Irrestible force meets immovable object.

    Mathematics : 0/0

    Circuit theory: Instantaneoulsly open the switch supplying steady-state current to an inductor.

    Conclusion: The concepts cannot be used in these situations. You are overdriving your model.

    Answer: Only apply idealized models in situations in which the fundamental assumptions are valid.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    Without space-time, objects could not exist, so it is contradictory
    to say "without space-time" and yet have "an object".
    Why do you claim that? The concept of "object" and the concept of "spacetime" are quite different, I see no reason the former requires the latter, merely that we use the concepts in tandem.
    If time was created at the instant of the Big Bang, then there was
    no "before that". It is a logical contradiction.
    That is also not so obvious. Certainly, the meaning of "before that" needs to be quite a bit more sophisticated if there was no time as we measure it, but an appropriate meaning can be extended to the concept nevertheless. For example, some speculations about the Big Bang origin (by Hawking and so forth) have a four-dimensional spatial universe for some reason converting one dimension into time. So "before that", you'd have a four-dimensional spatial universe. Remember, in relativity, all times exist just as all space does, so the concept of "before" is like the concept of "over there". That connection might have been even closer "before" the Big Bang origin.

    If space was created at the instant of the Big Bang, then there
    was no "volume" before that. It is a logical contradiction.
    Yes, there would be no way to talk about volume if space was created at the instant of the Big Bang origin, but we don't know that this is the case. And even if it was the case, one could use the concept of volume at the time of the origin as a descriptor of the volume prior to the origin. It wouldn't mean the same thing, but it could still meaning something nevertheless.

    Time is not a force. What did you mean by "force of time"?
    Here is where Alexander is using more philosophical terminology than scientific. That is indeed an issue with what he is saying-- on a science forum, we crave the precise definitions science allows. But some questions are either outside of science, or at least on the boundary of science into other more philosophical modes of inquiry. On those boundaries, greater latitude into the use of the words must be allowed, especially to someone not technically proficient.

    The very nature of the OP ("irresistible force") implies we cannot be talking about the standard and precise scientific meaning of force, for any force could be negated by an equal and opposite one, so precise scientific language cannot allow for irresistible forces. But we do not reason from starting with precise language and saying that anything that does not fit cannot be important or useful to think about-- that would be backwards logic. Indeed, we well know that our own precise scientific language has boxed us into something of a corner when we talk about the Big Bang origin. I think the question being asked here is quite an interesting one, it is basically, what insights can we gain on the boundaries of empirical science by considering interpretations of what irresistible forces and immovable objects might be. The possible outcomes of creation and annihilation, brought up early in the thread, give some valid insights into that question, it seems to me.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,229
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket View Post
    Mathematics : 0/0
    But there are interesting mathematical insights that stem from considering this type of relation, specifically the meaning of limits.
    Circuit theory: Instantaneoulsly open the switch supplying steady-state current to an inductor.
    Yes, this is an example of a simplification that is useful in some situations not being valid in others.
    Answer: Only apply idealized models in situations in which the fundamental assumptions are valid.
    Yes, but Alexander is not applying the idealized models, that's what his critics are doing-- he is leaving those models and their language behind because they don't work, and asking if the question still survives the breakdown of the inapplicable albeit precise versions of the words. People are saying "you can't ask that question, because our idealized models can't accomodate it", but that's the backwards logic I was talking about-- the idealized models exist to be useful when they do apply, not to tell us what we shouldn't ask about when they break down. But this is a bit like the issue of philsophy in physics, which we know is an area of some fundamental dispute!

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    15,088
    This reminds me of the famous question, can god make a stone big enough that it can't lift it? This is not really a paradox about god, but rather a demonstration of the illogical nature of the concept of omnipotency. I think that similarly, the original post is based on impossibility, so it only demonstrates that it is logically impossible to have both an irresistible force and an immovable object.
    As above, so below

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,229
    Actually, I rather take Alexander's view on that not actually being a logical impossibility. It is a problem with definition-- and we can retain the paradox by simply defining an irresistible force to be a force that moves (noticeably or significantly) anything that is movable, and an immovable object to be unmoved (in any appreciable or quantifiable way) by any resistible force. Indeed, those are the only definitions you can allow yourself that have any meaning, if you maintain that absolutely irresistible forces and absolutely immovable objects are impossible. But your problem is, even if you adopt that stance, and take the definitions I give here in an attempt to allow those words to have some actual meaning, you still end up smack in the middle of the unanswered question: what happens when the irresistible force meets the immovable object, so defined as above? Alexander's point is that the flow of time satisfies (in an imprecise way, not being a "force" in the conventional sense) that definition of irresistibility, and the entire universe satisfies that definition of immovability. And, we do have an answer, of sorts, for that case, even if we don't really understand it. It's not so clear what we deduce from all this, but I think it still a valid observation that might conceivably help categorize various ways of thinking about the origin event.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    15,088
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    It is a problem with definition-- and we can retain the paradox by simply defining an irresistible force to be a force that moves (noticeably or significantly) anything that is movable.
    Then it really is a problem with definitions, because I would define irresistible as a force that can move any object, and an immovable object as one that can resist being moved by any force.
    As above, so below

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    Yes, but Alexander is not applying the idealized models, that's what his critics are doing-- he is leaving those models and their language behind because they don't work, and asking if the question still survives the breakdown of the inapplicable albeit precise versions of the words. People are saying "you can't ask that question, because our idealized models can't accomodate it", but that's the backwards logic I was talking about-- the idealized models exist to be useful when they do apply, not to tell us what we shouldn't ask about when they break down. But this is a bit like the issue of philsophy in physics, which we know is an area of some fundamental dispute!
    The problem here, then, seems to be one of language.

    An irresistible force, is not a particularly well-defined concept. Any finite force is resistible as you noted, just apply a force of the same magnitude in the opposite direction. An infinite force is impossible, hence meaningless in reality and hence must be an idealization. But it does not apply to an idealized model either.

    So, what is the subject here if it is not an idealization and not anything real either ?

    I agree that idealized models ought not constrain that which we might discuss. But they do often provide the language and context for the discussion of concepts. That observation seems to be inapplicable here. So, what does the provide the definition and context required to continue this discussion ?

    There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -John von Neumann

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Halcyon Dayz View Post
    Most, if not all, paradoxes are semantical in nature, not physical.
    Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Halcyon Dayz View Post
    You have to think about what the words irresistible and immovable mean.
    I agree that terms should be defined if they are going to be used. As you can see from the rest of the thread, some disagree

Similar Threads

  1. So THIS is what happens when gale-force wind meets face.
    By NoahJ in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2012-May-17, 10:37 AM
  2. Barring "Internal Force Fields" And Novel Materials...
    By BigDon in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 2010-May-16, 06:52 PM
  3. Gravitational force of moving object question
    By m74z00219 in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 2009-May-03, 05:49 PM
  4. The twin "paradox" and a looped universe
    By Theophage in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 2008-Aug-03, 03:35 AM
  5. Ashmore's "paradox" Reloaded.
    By papageno in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 615
    Last Post: 2005-Jun-13, 05:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •