Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-9154802-20180509212825/@comment-31908363-20180514184924

AlphaTheHD wrote: LardWad420 wrote:

Unstoppable forces and immovable objects don't mix.

ANDY3556 wrote:

I think that, if there's an immovable object, then there CAN'T exist an unstoppable force. It has to be one of them: not both.

GravitonPulse22 wrote:

This reminds me the irresistible force paradox. If we take real science into consideration, the most concrete answer might be "one of both don't exist if the other does". Actually, there can if both are one in the same. If an object has infinite inertia, it will be both immovable to an observer at rest relative to it and unstoppable to an observer in motion relative to it. But, much like opposite Absolute powers, the problem comes when two of them are on a collision course with each other. Since both cannot be accelerated or decelerated in any direction, the only option left for them is to pass through each other without interacting. Unfortunately, inertia is the capacity to resist change to motion or rest; it isn't a quantitative property but a qualitative property. Given that mass is the amount of inertia that an entity has, i think it would be more appropiate to say if an entity had an infinite amount of mass, it would be both immovable to an observer at rest and unstoppable (or at least able to move faster than light) to an observer in motion.

Why did i comment this, because i love to procrastinate, when i shouldn't be.