What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?

[EdwardSinclair]

I wonder if there is any physicist among us that can explain this paradox to me!

From what I can understand it takes into account that the universe is finite, and that as such an immovable force cannot exist, since it would require an infinite inertia, and therefore infinite mass. Such huge weight would make the object collapse under its own weight.

Furthermore, the immovable force cannot exist with an unstoppable force, given the fact that both forces are indestructible! These theories have even challenged the concept of omnipotence.

I know that our universe is moving from scientific experiments, with stars appearing different over a millennia, and with some disappearing altogether.

What I have problems with, is understanding how the universe can be finite, if the law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, that it merely changes from one form to another.

I have heard and read about Big Crunch and Bing Bang theories, and find them interesting, but fail to understand how the university could collapse under it's own weight, and the restart!

Just hoping someone is willing to discuss about this...

[whale]

This is a very interesting question you have, I wish I could actually discuss it in further detail but unfortunately I would be talking about things that I have no real rational understanding of. I would be very interested to hear what someone has to say about this though

[iriasky]

Originally Posted by EdwardSinclair

I wonder if there is any physicist among us that can explain this paradox to me!

From what I can understand it takes into account that the universe is finite, and that as such an immovable force cannot exist, since it would require an infinite inertia, and therefore infinite mass. Such huge weight would make the object collapse under its own weight.

Furthermore, the immovable force cannot exist with an unstoppable force, given the fact that both forces are indestructible! These theories have even challenged the concept of omnipotence.

I know that our universe is moving from scientific experiments, with stars appearing different over a millennia, and with some disappearing altogether.

What I have problems with, is understanding how the universe can be finite, if the law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, that it merely changes from one form to another.

I have heard and read about Big Crunch and Bing Bang theories, and find them interesting, but fail to understand how the university could collapse under it's own weight, and the restart!

Just hoping someone is willing to discuss about this...

Hmmm... well, it would seem to me, just using what little logic I have, that if an unstoppable force met an immovable object it would be redirected. My reasoning for this is as follows. The immovable object cannot be moved, but the unstoppableis in constant motion, and therefore if the two met or collided, the force would be redirected into another direction, as the object cannot be removed and the force would be constant. This is entirely supposition on my part. I hope you don't mind and find it useful.

[GRH]

Simple...

God divides by zero, and a black hole is created!

[EdwardSinclair]

Thank you everyone for your contributions! I am still waiting for more inputs into this problem, and yet another one arises...

Originally Posted by GRH

Simple...

God divides by zero, and a black hole is created!

This simple realisation of yours has me both baffled and amused. Allow me to explain...

Many people talk about the eternal nature of man, the soul! Some people really believe in the afterlife, but picture what nothingness must really feel like! Go into a perfect silent room, and for a moment close your eyes and blank out your mind, and try to figure out what I mean. The biggest problem there would be self-awareness, since you would not know you are in this state. Perhaps we existed in this state even before we were born! Being self aware and stuck in nothingness is a hellish nightmare, unless you can interact.

Since energy cannot be created nor destroyed, we were all there in the beginning albeit unaware, hence we are all part of this initial driving force, which means our bodies are not ours, but rather part of this initial energy. If you believe in God, and that He created man would I be going too far to theorise that if we are made from parts of God's energy that we are Him, just as you are your parents through genetics?

You can't divide something by nothing, because the answer is unattainable, and for this very reason the number zero always fascinates me! What I came to realise is that life comes with a lot of zeros, there are a lot of those good for nothing days, where you think you've done nothing, or learnt nothing, but is it really so? Perhaps the nothing really is something, after all zero is not a number for nothing obviously.

It's funny we always start counting by what we have, which is always 1 or greater. Now to throw people off, you could just say that you have "zero" options, since to a human mind that should sound positive, because zero is neither positive nor negative, and you didn't state "not having", but I digress...

Any number divided by itself is one (with the exception of zero),
Infinity is not a number, but if it were, it would be the largest number, while zero would be the smallest number. I started thinking of Alpha and Omega, and assumed that zero could also be infinity, since infinity divided by infinity is also not equal to one, but then there are different types of infinity!

God(infinity) divided by zero(infinity) = black hole(infinity)?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by EdwardSinclair

What I have problems with, is understanding how the universe can be finite, if the law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, that it merely changes from one form to another.

The universe appears to be finite because it is 13.7 billion years old. Light travels at 186000 miles/second, so the further out you see something the further in the past you're looking. i.e. a galaxy that's 2 million lightyears away is 2 million years in the past. So you can't see anything further out than 13.7 billion lightyears because that would be before the big bang.

Originally Posted by EdwardSinclair

I have heard and read about Big Crunch and Bing Bang theories, and find them interesting, but fail to understand how the university could collapse under it's own weight, and the restart!

That is a theory. It depends on the amount of mass in the universe, and if it will produce enough gravity to eventually stop the expansion of the universe and bring everything back into a singularity.

Our universe is most likely a "white hole", which is the other end of a black hole. So if you've ever wanted to know what it looks like inside a black hole, just look around.

[TracyCoxx]

Edward, you mentioned Nothingness. Some people wonder how the universe could have come from nothing? That is an assumption - one that I believe, otherwise the implication is that there was always something, and that doesn't make sense to me. On the other hand, I have no idea how something could come from nothing either.

My concept of nothing is this: Not just empty space, but no space. Space is something. It's a place where objects can move and exist. I'm talking about no space at all. And space isn't just space, it's space-time. So no time either. Nothingness is devoid of anything that can be described or labeled. There are many types of possible universes, and their "signature" is their number and types of dimensions. Our universe has 3 spatial dimensions that we are familiar with, one time dimension, and several other dimensions that are very small and undetectable. Universes can have other configurations and even multiple time dimensions. Nothingness would have zero dimensions.

So with that said I am really baffled at how the universe could arise from Nothingess. But at the same time it would be baffling how there could always be something. Anytime there is something, you would ask where did it come from? Why is it there? That's what I ask about God. If there is a God, where did he come from? That a supernatural all powerful all intelligent omniscient being would come from nothing seems even more bizarre than a natural physical universe somehow arising. Yet this is what most people believe.

[randolph]

Dark energy has thrown a monkey wrench into the whole idea of big bangs, time and space time. We now discover that something (dark energy) is causing the universe to accelerate its expansion (the big bank was based on a collapsing universe). So dark energy causes the universe to accelerate because the particles of dark energy repel each other? Supposedly dark energy is much more abundant in the universe than observable energy (mass). Now scientists are claiming that light coming from the center of our galaxy is produced by dark energy bumping into each other. It's all very confusing. I think I will go back to thinking about sex.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Supposedly dark energy is much more abundant in the universe than observable energy (mass). Now scientists are claiming that light coming from the center of our galaxy is produced by dark energy bumping into each other.

I haven't heard about that one. There is a super massive black hole at the center of our galaxy and other galaxies. It has the mass of millions of suns. And they've actually seen stars there in the center of the galaxy orbiting nothing. Very cool.

You're right about dark energy throwing a monkey wrench in things. But that's good though. When we find something like that unexpected it seems like a setback, but it is most always followed by several advances in physics.

[Hedonistman]

Where'd u cum w/the idea that the universe IS finite ? The universe is constantly expanding,,, ipso facto,,, it is not finite. As for the rest,,, as far as I know,, we, do not know if there is/are any 'forces' which can not be stopped. The 'law' goes: an object in motion will stay in motion, unless or until it is met by an opposing object,, of =mass, and velocity. This is called 'collision',, lol. As far as we know of/about the nature of our universe,,,, the more we know, (learn) the more we realize how much,,, wayyyyy much,,, more,,, we don't know.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Hedonistman

Where'd u cum w/the idea that the universe IS finite ? The universe is constantly expanding,,, ipso facto,,, it is not finite.

Just because something is expanding does not mean it's infinite. It's been constantly expanding at a finite rate for a finite time. That makes it finite.

Originally Posted by Hedonistman

As for the rest,,, as far as I know,, we, do not know if there is/are any 'forces' which can not be stopped. The 'law' goes: an object in motion will stay in motion, unless or until it is met by an opposing object,, of =mass, and velocity. This is called 'collision',, lol.

An unstoppable force vs an immovable object is a cool play on words, but it has no bearing in physics. Until we've encountered either of these there's no reason to analyze it.

Originally Posted by Hedonistman

As far as we know of/about the nature of our universe,,,, the more we know, (learn) the more we realize how much,,, wayyyyy much,,, more,,, we don't know.

This sentiment has been used many times before, but it completely discounts the progress we've made.

[ila]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Just because something is expanding does not mean it's infinite. It's been constantly expanding at a finite rate for a finite time. That makes it finite.

Your reasoning doesn't make sense to me. Do you care to further explain this concept?

[Hedonistman]

WTF too,,, I gots to ask,,, who has taken even 1 physics class ?? How's about a class in understanding written english ? Duhhhhhh...
OK,. so then ,, if our universe is finite,,, please tell me where the 'outer limits' be,, as in where does it end ?? Do you have even the most remote clue,,, ???? Always,, continuously expanding,,, yes that doesn't necessarily mean our universe is infiite,, but by simple definition of the word 'finite' 'to have limited size, scope,,, dimmension,, etc etc etc,,, it sure as shit means it is NOT finite. The more we learn the more we know,, how lil we do know,, is a positive statement,, not 'sentiment'
Anyway,,, throw bricks if u must,, but maybe better,,, get an education,,
It's not what people don't know, it's what they think they know,, that's ALL WRONG

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Hedonistman

OK,. so then ,, if our universe is finite,,, please tell me where the 'outer limits' be,, as in where does it end ?? Do you have even the most remote clue,,, ????

I said the universe APPEARS to be finite. If the universe is 13.7 billion years old, and it is, then you cannot see anything that is greater than 13.7 billion light years away. The latest measurements by the WMAP probe suggest that the universe is actually infinite, but we'll never detect anything further out than 13.7 billion light years... Well I take that back, in another .1 billion years we'll detect out to 13.8 billion light years, etc.

Originally Posted by ila

Your reasoning doesn't make sense to me. Do you care to further explain this concept?

I'm just correcting the statement made by Hedonistman that if "the universe is constantly expanding,,, ipso facto,,, it is not finite." The fact that it is constantly expanding does not necessarily mean that it is infinite if the universe has a finite age.

It's the old rate times time = distance formula... r*t=d
If r & t are both finite, how can d be infinite? Or were you asking something else?

It is the density of the universe that allows us to determine if it's infinite or not, and it seems to be.

Originally Posted by Hedonistman

Always,, continuously expanding,,, yes that doesn't necessarily mean our universe is infiite,, but by simple definition of the word 'finite' 'to have limited size, scope,,, dimmension,, etc etc etc,,, it sure as shit means it is NOT finite.

In terms of the observable universe, if you get the Hubble telescope and take a look at what you see out there, you will not see any galaxies that are 12.7 billion light years away, because there were none more than 12.7 billion years ago. If you look out 13.4 billion light years away, you won't see any stars there either. It's not because they're too far away and hard to see. There just aren't any. Beyond that, there's just the cosmic microwave background. That obscures the last 400 million lightyears out there. You will not get any images of anything beyond that. We may possibly be able to detect gravity waves beyond 13.4 billion light years, but you won't get anything beyond 13.7 billion light years.

Originally Posted by Hedonistman

WTF too,,, I gots to ask,,, who has taken even 1 physics class ?? How's about a class in understanding written english ? Duhhhhhh...
...
Anyway,,, throw bricks if u must,, but maybe better,,, get an education,,

I have taken a bit more than 1 physics class. If you're interested in this stuff, I'd be happy to fill you in. Simply saying that finite rate times finite time = finite distance does not account to throwing bricks. We're just chatting here.

[ila]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I'm just correcting the statement made by Hedonistman that if "the universe is constantly expanding,,, ipso facto,,, it is not finite." The fact that it is constantly expanding does not necessarily mean that it is infinite if the universe has a finite age.

It's the old rate times time = distance formula... r*t=d
If r & t are both finite, how can d be infinite? Or were you asking something else?

It is the density of the universe that allows us to determine if it's infinite or not, and it seems to be.

Thankyou, I understand now and the formula does give clarity to your explanation. I was not asking anything else; no ulterior motives.

[mabedzaqueen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Edward, you mentioned Nothingness. Some people wonder how the universe could have come from nothing? That is an assumption - one that I believe, otherwise the implication is that there was always something, and that doesn't make sense to me. On the other hand, I have no idea how something could come from nothing either.
If there is a God, where did he come from? That a supernatural all powerful all intelligent omniscient being would come from nothing seems even more bizarre than a natural physical universe somehow arising.

First, i wanna thank Edward for having started this thread...
Now Tracy, i just don't see why (or rather, how) something inanimate would not have ?always been there?... Simply because minerals, as opposed to animals and vegetals, have no life in them!! I suppose a kind of superior being must have provided at least the "spark" that allowed forms of life to develop on this planet (and possibly elsewhere), but where the heck does that force come from? A sort of intelligent form of energy that once was present in our solar system??

Also, i've noted time is considered as a "dimension"... but it seems to me that the universe doesn't give a shit about time! Like everything inanimate, the universe simply exists, that's all... Nobody created it... To me, time matters only to what's alive... I don't think it deserves all the hype it gets
______
Dennis.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by mabedzaqueen

Now Tracy, i just don't see why (or rather, how) something inanimate would not have ?always been there?... Simply because minerals, as opposed to animals and vegetals, have no life in them!! I suppose a kind of superior being must have provided at least the "spark" that allowed forms of life to develop on this planet (and possibly elsewhere), but where the heck does that force come from? A sort of intelligent form of energy that once was present in our solar system??

Exactly... if you're saying a superior being is required to provide the "spark" to begin life, you can't ignore that a superior being is loitering around and where did he come from? The superior being argument just defers the problem without getting rid of it.

As for how inanimate matter becomes alive, this is something that happens over billions of years. It has been observed that asteroids do contain organic molecules and amino acids. It has also been demonstrated in the lab that simulate certain types of meteorite strikes (i.e. glancing blows) that these amino acids do survive impact. It has also been demonstrated that these molecules can combine into more complex amino acids during impact. There's all kinds of events that happen to alter organic compounds. Some of these after happening many times eventually produce interesting results. Some of those even create cycles between compounds that end up reproducing themselves. Over billions of years these become complex enough that you'd call it life. Life is made up of the same stuff that inanimate matter is made up of.

Originally Posted by mabedzaqueen

Also, i've noted time is considered as a "dimension"... but it seems to me that the universe doesn't give a shit about time! Like everything inanimate, the universe simply exists, that's all... Nobody created it... To me, time matters only to what's alive... I don't think it deserves all the hype it gets

The universe does change over time, but much of it happens very slowly which gives the impression that the universe doesn't give a shit about time. Look far enough away (and therefore far enough back in time) and you'll see that stars were only made up of hydrogen, unlike now where they have heavier elements. Go back even further, and atoms didn't even exist in their present form - so inanimate objects certainly have not always existed. Go far into the future and stars will eventually run out of fuel and turn off. The universe will be dark.

[randolph]

Basically, we are dealing with two realities. The reality that we can see and measure, the visible universe. The other reality is dark energy that we cannot see but we can indirectly measure. Until we develop ways to measure and observe the dark energy, which is the predominate energy in the universe, we will be unable to fully understand what is going on. Possibly the visible universe is nothing more than foam resting on top of a sea of dark energy.

[EdwardSinclair]

I see and I read all with much satisfaction!

Clearly, each one is entitled to their own point of view and scientific theories to back them, and I shall not rule any of them out, at least not until the secret is revealed!

Some very interesting explanations have been put forth indeed.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Just because something is expanding does not mean it's infinite. It's been constantly expanding at a finite rate for a finite time. That makes it finite.

...but, alas, herein lies my biggest question/confusion:

Please explain what the universe is expanding on?

"Surely even the greatest painter needs a canvas in which to draw his masterpiece!"

Or is there something beyond the universe that we cannot measure, and thus cannot see? Perhaps in a different plane or dimension? Is this "canvas" infinite? If it is not the universe will come to a halt...

Furthermore if our universe resembles a white hole, would it not further validate the theory of "multi-verses"?

"To every action there's an equal and opposite reaction"
Whatever comes in, must come out, hence theoretically it should be possible for the rip in the very fabric of space itself to be made to transfer bodies in between "multi-verses", or is that reserved only to science-fiction?

Just food for thought!

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by EdwardSinclair

...but, alas, herein lies my biggest question/confusion:

Please explain what the universe is expanding on?

"Surely even the greatest painter needs a canvas in which to draw his masterpiece!"

Or is there something beyond the universe that we cannot measure, and thus cannot see? Perhaps in a different plane or dimension? Is this "canvas" infinite? If it is not the universe will come to a halt...

These things are way outside our everyday experiences and so we have no intuitive way to imagine this. We're so used to space being a place where things exist and move we have no concept of what it means to be outside of that. And not just outside of space, but outside of spacetime, where there is no time either. Try and imagine that. I can't. There is something called M-Theory that does explain mathematically (and I'm using that term loosely because it's WAY beyond any math I've seen in my graduate physics classes) what is outside our universe.

It has been explained though in simpler terms. Imagine a balloon expanding. There's dots on the balloon and as it's expanding they're moving apart from eachother - like galaxies do as the universe is expanding. The surface of the balloon is a curved 2D surface. Replace that 2D surface with a 3D surface on a 4 dimensional sphere (which we can't imagine) and you get an idea what's going on.

Originally Posted by EdwardSinclair

Furthermore if our universe resembles a white hole, would it not further validate the theory of "multi-verses"?

Yes, and there is more and more indications that there are multiple universes. Also there is the question, why is our universe tuned so perfectly for life to exist? There's 6 constants: the charge of an electron, gravitational constant, hubble constant, etc, where if any of them were off even very slightly life as we know it would be impossible. Atoms couldn't exist, the universe would collapse within a millisecond, etc. How did we get so lucky to have a universe made just for us? It must have been designed by God.

Or there are countless universes where most of them do collapse within a millisecond or are completely uninhabitable for whatever reason. But within those countless universes there may be one or two like ours that can support life. And that life would be marveling at how "fine-tuned" that universe is for them. Well if it wasn't suitable for life, there would be no life to say it's suitable for life.

Originally Posted by EdwardSinclair

"To every action there's an equal and opposite reaction"
Whatever comes in, must come out, hence theoretically it should be possible for the rip in the very fabric of space itself to be made to transfer bodies in between "multi-verses", or is that reserved only to science-fiction?

The idea of wormholes came from Einstein and Rosen. It's called an Einstein-Rosen bridge. So yes, it's possible. Although you'd need exotic matter lining the wormhole to make it safe to traverse.

Originally Posted by EdwardSinclair

Just food for thought!

Question everything

[TracyCoxx]

There's a new theory being talked about that suggests that instead of a big bang, the beginning of the universe may have been something more like water freezing into ice. The ice in this case would be spacetime. So there may have been some kind of phase change from something fluid and superhot before that cooled and crystalized into a universe with spacetime. They also say that like matter, space is also made up of extremely small building blocks and is quantized. I think this is pretty intriguing. They have some work to do on it though, including showing that the properties of general relativity arise from their initial principles. The article also talks about other observations that can be made to prove their theory.

http://www.science20.com/news_articl...ig_chill-93154

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

There's a new theory being talked about that suggests that instead of a big bang, the beginning of the universe may have been something more like water freezing into ice. The ice in this case would be spacetime. So there may have been some kind of phase change from something fluid and superhot before that cooled and crystalized into a universe with spacetime. They also say that like matter, space is also made up of extremely small building blocks and is quantized. I think this is pretty intriguing. They have some work to do on it though, including showing that the properties of general relativity arise from their initial principles. The article also talks about other observations that can be made to prove their theory.

http://www.science20.com/news_articl...ig_chill-93154

Sounds like dark energy and the Higgs field are getting closer together. Maybe they are the same thing.

[TracyCoxx]

The higgs boson is where mass comes from. Mass and its associated gravitational field is what slows down the expansion of the universe. So far, gravity is well understood and no observations have called into question our understanding of gravity yet.

The acceleration of the expansion of the universe is new, and that's what they're saying is caused by dark energy. So that's something else. Dark energy is something that seems to produce more space.

[sorcisto]

Hell freezes over, cows fly to the moon and on some occasions I might get laid