Me in one sentence

@@user-ss2pj1rh7q This ^ whole user is "Well, teeeeeeeeeechnically..."

This is sooo underated it actually hurts 😂😂👌

@Firstname Lastname thought so too. lol Fixed it

YGT-25 [blank] wait how many emojis did it have before XD

train vs tree

Lordy Chen Lol i wrote the same comment😂

Lordy Chen funny thing is, the train would pass thru the tree standing on the railway

Musa G. den its confirmed... GTA 5 IS IMMOVABLE FORCE COLLISION SIMULATOR

IKR

Terraria reference?

Ah yes I hate those damn rocks

@@themightycxzeriallord bro i lost 10 plat

A falling boulder coming at you may be strong but family is stronger

A man will sacrifice his life to push the one he loves out of the boulder's path. Love wins that fight.

🎉

You forgot to reverse the polarity of the neutron flow.

Quantum mechanics

@@user-fw3wl6rv1v Quantum mechanics are those particles that can repair the vehicles of atoms. Yep, math checks out.

@@MonkeyJedi99 Movies be like "One person dies* Main characters: I can revive him in the power of Quantum mechanics

*quantum*

Physics: maybe

Well yes, but actually no

U

Physics: theoretically

force will just bounce

The Dutch mountain:

pretty much

Or ask for your money back because it was a shitty fight that ended in a tie which was bullshit fuck you ksi and jake paul

shrek onion this is a Wendy’s

@@biscuitalex829 Wendy's, roast me pls

Or in a different reference frame we could consider this as happening all the time. The two objects just need to not interact with the same forces. For example, gluons only interact with the strong force while W and Z bosons only interact with the weak force. To each of these, the other type is an immovable object that it can not change the momentum of, because it can not interact with it. Thus they effectively pass through each other as if the other wasn't there.

*A R T I L L E R Y O N L Y*

This post made by going through Belgium gang

Best quotes ever

By like.....couldn’t this work if the unstoppable force just go around,it’s still not stopping,it’s just changing direction.

@@0Abraham16 yes it is true, just ask France

You had to bring up gta trains didn't you?

Dark Comet haha

I was thinking about what would happen in GTA😆

Or train vs train

It actually is possible and for things to pass through each other.

Having Two Unacceleratable Objects Hit Each Other Crashes Paper Mario

^ its joke

Yea cuz universe runs on windows xp

ERR Logic Failure Please revert to previous, working version, and re-boot If this message appears again, contact the developer

XD

You mean like they won't have an influence on another? If one person is dead-set on their way in one direction and another person refuses to be changed, they'll just pass each other by with no affects Is that what you mean?

Non’t’n’t

Isn‘t it „yesn‘t“? Like didN‘T....

Noesothone

Logicn't

@@shmerox7683 of GB and 5AM

Well, my solution was that one becomes an unstoppable force and the other becomes an immovable object.

Both wrong it will slip around the object and be shifted over in what ever direction it slipped when contact was made. It was explained by a renowned theoretical physicist.

I like this because realistically there is no way they could touch, even slipping around doesn't work because that implies that the unstoppable force was forced to move around, which implies that the immovable object is stronger. Meanwhile if they pass through eachother then both remain true, the object wasn't moved, the force wasn't stopped, the only question is how they pass through eachother.

@@Woo.f32 if it slipped and changed direction it's not an immovable object

@@azaria2977 no I’m saying the unstoppable force slips. What you said was compelling though

I don't think that's how that would work because these phenomena are the result of the extremely strong gravitational field of a black hole, which is not present in the scenario of an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object.

@@daviddow3705 good point, I am wondering as to whether something besides gravity could also cause it simply because both seem to be things attempting to remain stable despite going against normal logic. I could totally be wrong, but it’s an interesting though to me.

Nerd

But the wall isn't immovable.

+Daniel Anderson you missed the joke, fam

+SepтeracT Throw a gameboy at it. More fun that way. XD

+SepтeracT Let's take it another step, put the Nokias inside the LHC.

+SepтeracT That's how you get holes in your walls.

the sound is gold too

Same.

Someone gif this.

Yeah I know, I know

@@tenishiatanyani121 You mean GIFT this lol

Congrat ! You're not insane ! Wait... I'm used to say "congrat ! You're insane" Congrat ! You made me change my quote !

Well this isn't the only solution so you are insane just only slightly

@@shughes5778 what other solution

@@Qreator06 interesting. I wanna know bjt i dont wanna die and use impossible objects

YESS, I knew it too!!

Why did i have to see this as I'm playing skyrim xD

wuld NA KEST!

I think Skyrim is a pretty cool guy. Eh slays dragons and doesnt afraid of anything.

+desu38 Arby n the Chief reference?xD Really made me laugh

Jetix the Average Otaku so what you're saying is that SKYRIM is the one who shouts Fus Roh Dah. Oh my god..

Not just your mind but also your face it seems.

i just MOUNTAIN loves!

I mountain you

So remember to love your rocks

wanna go to love everest?

Xanxei Chuck Norris did a Ted Nugent and went super right wing Christian theocrat. He's kind of fallen out of favour.

Yeah I mean it only happened 8 years ago, guys.

Before Chuck Norris goes to bed, he checks under his bed for Liam Neeson. Before Liam Neeson goes to bed, he checks under his bed for Lars Monsen. But he doesn't find Lars Monsen. Lars Monsen never sleeps inside.

well why don't you get Chuck Norris to fight him self? that would be a lot better.

But you can't force an immovable object

Fistbumping himself*

@@memeswereablessingfromthel3942 Yeah but that would be two unstopabble forces. Santana punching himself is an unstoppable force (his fist) vs an immovable object (him)

@@GoAheadShaun Aha I see, I didin't know I was trying to correct and intellectual of your calibre. Forgive me sire

@@memeswereablessingfromthel3942 tis but a scratch

Saitama isn't immovable. Remember how Boros tossed him around before he got destroyed? He just can't be damaged but he can be moved

The Nokia would fly around the earth and hit Chuck Norris in the back of the head and land on the ground and neither one would have taken any damage.

Caeden Regester Microsoft already punched Nokia and it wasn't pretty.

nice one xDD

Made my day XD

lol XD

i laughed at that too lol

because ok

I would like this but it’s at 69 likes N I C E

Failtheblank K it’s ok to like now

Elooong Musk thank you

Yes.

О да, ради этого комментария я и зашёл на это видео

Ben Cadet How?

Lmao hes wrong, by unstopabble force we mean an object moving at a spead that cannot be decreased and by immovable object we mean an object whos speed cannot be increased

Clash of Challenge by that definition the unstoppable object would move trough the immovable object not effecting it as the immovable objects molecules don't move at all and the unstoppable objects molecules don't stop moving and would move around the immovable object's thus he is correct anyway it would seem to pass right through like barry allen or wally west running through a wall

Clash of Challenge lol u didnt Even watched the Video

Quiet Guy Josh we are talking about an unstoppable FORCE not object. An unstoppable force doesnt mean it is powerful, it just means it doesnt stop. It can be weak as hell but it just shouldnt stop so if an unstoppable force meets an immovable the object wouldnt move but the force wouldnt stop either

but you already had. it's called muscles

matthijs buise Pfft, who needs muscles when I can just make my drink magically come closer by approaching it... oh, wait.

thank you for making me lol, lol.

We get it, you don't understand the laws of physics and shit, no need to make yourself look like a dumbass any further.

***** I also get it, you don't understand the concept of jokes and shit, no need to make yourself look like a dumbass any further.

My boi asking real questions here

Ye it drops down to 0 weight

You are

Wrong

@@HM-hq4vf what do you mean man. 🙄

OoooooOOOoooo

Yikesss 😂😂😂

Howard Wolowitz's mom?

@igrm photonoo7 he meant insatiable appetite

@Chaz Hagen Yo mama so fat, she is practically a singularity.

jack costumer

what

@@footlover9416 asking for the manager is an unstoppable force and being the manager is the unmovable object

jack **** your **** not you

@@ahhshxshdnice2960 provably typo smartass, you dont have to correct him

ArgentumEmperio you can’t stop a ghost

@@alexwang982 if something's strange, in the neighborhood ...

@@iminsecurebut1215 GHOST BUSTERS

@@alexwang982 I think you skipped a bit

@@bumpjammy who you gonna call?!

lmao

I’ve wasted three minutes and thirty five seconds.

Guys its not wasting time as long as your listeninig pysics

3 lol

Brianna Belle video: Oh wait no, I'm gonna give you an answer that doesn't answer your question

xkcd exactly does this in his "what if" articles.

+Miceal wilson time it isn't a force. It's a dimension

Time isn't a force. It's a property of the universe. It's a dimension.

time stops for all things traveling at the speed of light

light isn't instant

it's almoooooooooooooooost stopped. if light speed was infinite, then time is stopped. because if time stops for light then every light in the universe should have reached anywhere they are headed to.

The real answer is : The immovable object will stay immovable, while the unstoppable object will get deflected. Still moving but in different direction. This answer is accurate bcos both statements remain true.

​@@nightcoremaniac4534interesting!

​@@nightcoremaniac4534smart

​@@nightcoremaniac4534but then again it wouldn't be an unstoppable force since the unmovable object stopped it and made it go another direction

​@@nightcoremaniac4534but the unstopable force would be stopped for a fraction of a fraction of a second before being deflected

+jgonz185 It has been done.

+jgonz185 Mythbusters.

Alucard Hellsing I belive he already knows neither a wall is immovable nor a train is unstopable, but I also think it would be interesting to watch regardless.

Alucard Hellsing Yeah well I am not arguing against it. Just wanted to point out what I said. Cause I toughed you didn't see it, my bad. Have a nice day sir.

+jgonz185 can they yes will it continue to go at 100moh after hitting it no

- { Nay } - Damn you anakin

how to beat the jedi

wow, flex on us, youre so smarttttt

Humble up a bit, you might find people will start to like you. Grade 7 physics.

So, if i stop believing in gravitation, i can float?

I have to agree! This is a divinely elegant and simple answer proposing an end to forever gnarly paradoxes that purported to eternally tyrannize our lives…

Is this sarcasm?

@@mattoucas869 No, this is patrick.

Who is that?

+Bryan Robinson it's called Google

+Jacqueline Chrisman No it isn't.

+Bryan Robinson A director. He directed The Last Airbender. I've never seen The Last Airbender, but I've seen a lot of nasty things about it, and I've been advised not to watch it.

+P0CK3TB00K You can watch sixth sense though

Daniel Muriungi Basically Vsauce--interesting but frustrating

Daniel Muriungi That's because MinutePhysics makes hypothetical questions. Other channels don't. They say: "there is no such thing as that" and they never make a hypothetical situation where the subject in question would exist. Other channels are 100% literal and leave no room for speculation, for what would happen if what you're discussing really existed.

Daniel Muriungi Well most of the questions posed are quite hypothetical. They're in the title more to open a discussion and get you thinking about things in general. In the video "Guns in Space" by Vsauce, people expect him to be talking about how guns work in space, space warfare, etc. But he doesn't. He actually starts talking about ways in which you could kill our sun, one of which being to pour a solar mass-worth of water on it. There is nowhere near that much water to be found in the observable universe and even if there was, how would anyone or anything be able to transport it to our sun? Guns in space are touched on, some physics behind how bullets would act in space are explained, but guns really aren't the focus of the video, even though "Gun" is one of the three words in the title. And as always, thanks for reading. 8)

***** Okay sure, but now how do you get it from there to our sun? How are you even going to survive the reaction caused by adding it's mass to the sun? You'd need to be some kind of omniscient being, or otherwise have an anomalous object that could shield you from the intense heat. It's still extremely theoretical.

***** I think you mean our solar system :P

the irrefutable argument doesn't have to guarantee changing minds it could have proven evidence backing it up, that doesn't mean everyone will go for it. like we know for a fact that Michael Jackson is dead but someone out there will think otherwise

that is basically real life. Imagine two legos, one stationary and the other moving towards it. And also a brick wall vs a baseball. Or a light post vs a moving car. It simply depends on the mass

oofed It's the one with the higher mass or force.

Blu_Ni what if they were of equal mass or force

candy canes Then... I don't know. If you give an object that has the mass of 80 kg, and push it with exactly 80 kg of force.. I dunno.

Me. I would win.

Yes

In a way superman is right actually

That means that they don't fight each other, so the words "they surrender" might be a metaphor or symbol (I'm not great at english class, so forgive me if I didn't use those terms properly :P) for "trespass each other", and also they don't get altered/affected in any way by the other object, which means that they don't fight, which means that they surrender because they neither go offensive (affect the other) nor defensive (get affected). I'm bad at explaining myself sometimes sorry if I give a hard time to anyone reading

Super man said an "irresistible" object. An an answer to an unanswerable question-which he answers. The only answe is one is untrue

Can Doodle i

For an object to atomize its atoms must accelerate. Note that changing direction is acceleration.

*Physicist

at straight A's?

@@wesleydecker5913 oof. They were. Now they won't move

More like big D’s and F’s

Mama's whip is unstoppable

Not funny

Brian Joseph Márquez The answer makes sense. If two forces are unstoppable then logically the only result would they would continue to pass through each other.

Theo Starodubov Yes it does, this question isn't a lawful question because nothing in our universe has infinite energy which is required to make an object unstoppable. So it becomes a logic question, thus, if two objects that are theoretically unstoppable they would pass through each other because that's the only interaction that continues to obey their law of "unstoppable". They wouldn't be destroyed because then they're not unstoppable and they wouldn't stop because then again they're not unstoppable. So the answer to this question is the only logical one.

Theo Starodubov Or maybe you just can't comprehend because of your own stupidity...

Of course, it's the ignorant person's way of winning an argument ;)

TheAdampr I am being a dick, but that really doesn't make any sense. Its not guessing what is beyond universe or is there any aliens, its ignoring and breaking laws of physics. You might as well ask, what would happen to carbohydrate, if I would replace hydrogen with a pizza.

I was expecting the end of like, everything

I too wanted at least a huge explosion or something..

the solely existence of an object with infinite mass would result in the end of the universe, so the problem became not a physical, butt a logical one.

Chase Palmer That's vsauce

Hey Vsauce, Michael here.

unstoppable actually

Hey you! I was gonna type that in the comments for easy likes

Marius Waag Østro I think it's an unstoppable object

No . I nuked it and it stopped

Schrodinger's Cat.

Mr. Shnoidz Was about to post the exact same thing

😂

another BOX

@@lucy3766 This dude is going places. ^

+Derfoklishe Especially when hit with The Stoppable Force. #WoWInsideJoke

+Derfoklishe WoW! You're so funny.

Yes! Although rather than disintegrate I think the infinite mass molecules/rigid pieces that hit eachother would freeze in time. At the moment of impact: Infinite mass->infinite negative acc/infinite speed->momentum won't allow->"speed of time" becomes infinitely small (m/s stays the same but a second will take infinitely long to pass). therefore effectively vanishing/disintegrating for the outside observer because it will never reach the next second in space-time even though its momentum stays exactly the same. In turn making the space availiable in the next moment in time for the next molecules/pieces to hit eachother and freeze in time etc.. until they both are completely frozen in time and gone for the outside observer, assuming they hit center and are mirror equals of eachother. Otherwise possibly letting the bigger infinite mass (what's left of it) to progress trough time and continue on with its momentum. Or pieces of both that didn't cross eachother.

im confused is this supposed to be funny

i gess

I feel like this I supposed to be an xkcd.

I have no memory of writing this so even I’m confused

+Pastlife17 in my opinion it is a problem of terminology rather than physics

That's the whole paradox, obviously its impossible to have an infinite force, but what happened if? Possibilities don't stop the human mind to think about it happening.

PreMo  ­ The what-if doesn't matter, because it's literally impossible for them both to exist at once. It's like having an unbreakable metal and a bullet that can penetrate any metal.

+Pastlife17 I think you miss the whole point of "what-if"s. Saying a hypothetical scenario can't happen is just refusing to answer, and it's your response that's completely meaningless, not the question.

Objects exert force and thus collide by emitting virtual photos. In the case of two objects of infinite mass, the virtual photos would have no effect on the objects and they could continue merrily through one another. As objects are generally made of atoms, which have a lot of space in and between, we wouldn't even have to have singularities necessarily.

i mean that’s what happens when you ask an impossible question, the laws of physics exist for a reason

default dan is right, this isnt a video game

Maybe for you, but I was gonna crap myself out of frustration if the video ended with the universe folding itself back into a singularity and starting over again. XD

hsing-yi huang people believe we are in a video game of sorts

@@hashimahmed2882 well what you gonna do when there's an unstoppable force against a unmoveable object

theCornyJoke essentially true

theCornyJoke to feed your need of satisfaction: "They give up." - Kal-El of Krypton goo.gl/images/v8apZJ

You mean Creative People: idiotically ruining physics and thermodynamics since the 16th century.

Nithin Srivatsa How?

It's not like studying something in physics just magically makes it true.

That is very true

a non intractable object must have 0 mass and all object with 0 mass must move at the speed of light. hence moving

what about the object having infinite frictIon?

Nothingness is an immovable object.

put something into the nothingness, like a rock, and BAM your nothingness just moved.

*If it can't move and nothing can stop me then pass through it, dig it ?

“Quiet child, Im saving myself”

Am I the only one who read that in Candace's voice

Batman's Greatest Failure yes

The Smol Gay Cinnamon Roll I guess I have Phineas and Ferb on the brain ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

@@chaoticcar1052 me too but i didnt realize it was Candace until i read ur comment xd

yes and a sad ramble it was