Explained: When an unstoppable force meets an immovable object

While there may be no definitive answer to unstoppable force vs immovable object, a clearer understanding can be obtained by the concept of the ‘frame of reference.’



By Arkabrata Bala
https://qrius.com/explained-when-an-unstoppable-force-meets-an-immovable-object/

Philosophy remains at the forefoot on the idea of thinking or on the approach of most mathematicians and scientists and whenever you evolve your mind to suppose on the far side of the realm, you feel yourself to be beset by nothingness and darkness amidst the galaxy. In school, you would have stumbled upon a matter on which you would have wanted to do all forms of mental juggling.

A paradox, greatly acclaimed as the unstoppable force, is much like an “omnipotence paradox” that dares to challenge the omnipotence as “What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object ?” However, simply before you get on board, brood over this for a short while till it seems to be too deviant for you.

Breaking it into two

As the question engulfs us, sinking deeper and deeper into it in all probability, making us realise that what’s been asked is truly larger than the universe but it’s not quite so creative. While not saturating our brains further with all kinds of redefinitions settled by philosophers, let’s alter the two entities in hand: The unstoppable force and an immovable object.

An unstoppable force, from the perspective of a layman, sounds to be an imperious force, probably more forceful and fearful than an earthquake that sweeps away any object, irrespective of the size or mass that comes in its path. The energy of the force should not depreciate a trifle throughout the course of its transmission from one object to another.

Hence, by terminology, an unstoppable force, in order to become unstoppable, ought to possess infinite energy. On the other hand, an immovable object is non-submissive to any force of any magnitude, from being palpable to an asteroid attack, that is, it won’t shift from its place at all. This seems coherent only when it bears infinite mass or infinite inertia.

Historical appearances

History has never been kind to any of the futile attempts made in answering the question by investors but time and again, it remains a witness to, however, not one but many of its exuberant forms ever since the birth of humanity. One such instance remains embedded in an exceeding story of a philosophical book from the 3rd century BC, titled “Han Feizi.”

The story describes a merchant of spears and shields who tries his best to reap the simplest of his day. On being asked about his spear, he gives a handy reply that it could pierce any shield whilst his shield could defend any form of spears it encounters. The vendor becomes incontestable whilst being confronted with the aftermath of the attack of his spear on his shield. This paradox left its invisible and still inconspicuous footprint in mythology as well.

In the story of Teumassian Fox, who could never be caught and the hound Laelaps, who never missed what it hunted for, the crux goes back to stand one. Even in trendy Hollywood movies, this contradiction, that hasn’t lost its disarming charm a bit, has shown plenty of craze. From DC Comics’ “All-Star Superman” to the films “Imagine Me and You” and “Knight Rider, KITT”, each one became magnetised to that particular dialogue. In 2008, The Dark Knight the Joker enthralled the audience in their final scene with Batman.

A change in perspective

The contradiction can often be brought in analogy with many different conflicts of interest which are undesirable and so mind-boggling at the same time. Many answers were able to throw some light on this issue. However, none appeared so benignant. Dr Christopher Kaczor claimed that there is no contradiction in and on itself, however, just a false perplexity; false within the sense that it arises by choice once a misconception is employed to govern a specific outcome.

By his thoughts, a ubiquitous person would never need to modify his mind. If he wills, it might portray lack of power and deprivation of his worldly possessions. Dynamical fortune would be inconsistent and not called for with omniscience, instead of contradicting it. Currently, if we tend to keep the two concepts aspect by aspect, a force with infinite inertia would be as per the definition of an immovable object whose momentum or motion cannot be modified anyhow and would bring pause to any object moving thereto, thus making it an unstoppable force.

If we glance at it from a different perspective, we would cause an equivalent conclusion once more. For the force to be unstoppable, it might need all forms of energy from the planet. That may drain away all the sources of radiation and the mass of earth in its condensed form. Hence, nothing would remain so as to construct or revive an immovable object and now if we tend to take care of the immovable object first, it might need the complete mass of our planet and every scrap of radiation regenerated into mass. There would be no supply of energy left. Either of the two can sustain at a time. Both are interchangeable and thereby, meet at the same point.

After a while, a well-known Youtube channel, “minutephysics”, came up with an appreciable solution to this ever-popular paradox. The basis of this solution is the idea of the frame of reference. For instance, you are lying on your bed asleep. Somebody at your home would see you not moving the least bit. However, if we think out of the box and suppose that the same person is travelling in a rocket that is passing by the planet Earth, it would consider you to be moving. That is the concept of the frame of reference.

The ‘frame of reference’

Now, an immovable object can be made movable by producing an external force or acceleration on it. Newton’s 2nd Law states that Acceleration is equal to Force divided by Mass (A=F/M). So, an unaccelerated object is such an object which has infinite mass. Mathematically, this can be proven very simply, as A=F/M, where F is a finite quantity but M isn’t. This leads A to become zero. So, not being able to accelerate an object doesn’t essentially mean that it’s not moving but having said this, it can’t change its speed directly. This ends the talk about the immovable object.

Now, all kinds of unbeatable forces in nature are caused by particles like photons, gluons, gravitons and many others that interact with an object and change its momentum. The only way to not be affected by a force is to not interact with it at all. For example, light is an unstoppable force that every photon emanating from itself hits your body and changes your momentum while you can do nothing about it except if you are transparent or avoid the light altogether. So, all forces are already unstoppable.

An unstoppable force is not assigned to mean any force like electromagnetism or gravity, but something one cannot avoid himself from, that is, an object whose velocity cannot be changed by pushing on it, which means it cannot accelerate. Doesn’t this sound familiar? Recalling what we have learnt earlier, an unstoppable force must be identical to an unaccelerated object, this boils right down to the obvious conclusion that the unstoppable force and the immovable object are the same, however, viewed from different reference frames.

Since infinite mass requires infinite energy, anything existing alike is on the far side of our recognition but what if we ignore gravity and imagine if there were an unaccelerated object? Well, the first requirement would be an infinite source of free power which would allow us to contently break the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. So, if two such vastly large unaccelerated, immovable objects are nearing towards each other collided but since by definition, it’s out of the question for either of their velocities to alter, the sole risk is that they pass right through each other without any impact on each other at all.

Although this philosophical question is as old as humanity, philosophers are still ruminative over the imperial truth. The question has been so adroitly oriented that both the unstoppable force and the immovable object are analogous to each other, but nobody has put the mirror in between them. The paradox encapsulates the utility and the powerful intellectuality of humanity, which we hardly get to examine these days and regrettably, hold dear at such times.

What's left?

Matthew Dowd had an interesting tweet a few days ago:

 

 

I think Dowd is right.  There’s not a lot left for Trump to run on.

Can you think of anything?  Give us your thoughts.

Thanks for posting and recommending. 

Anti-Democratic GOP Authoritarian Tribalism Intensifies

The New York Times reports on a split within the GOP in congress over whether or how to provide financial aid to blue states. The pro-democracy side is not considering the politics of the states to be helped and the anti-democratic, authoritarian tribal side is criticizing blue states for irresponsibility behind their own poor financial condition in the face of Covid-19. Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) argued at a GOP meeting for the pro-democracy side by asserting that “blue states aren’t the only ones who are screwed.”

The intra-GOP split was sharpened by a letter from Democratic governors of five states, California, Colorado, Oregon, Nevada and Washington State. The letter asserted that that all 50 states would need $1 trillion in “direct and flexible relief” to deal with the financial fallout of Covid-19.

The NYT writes:

“Two days later, Senator Rick Scott of Florida made the opposite point, arriving at another party gathering with his own placard that showed how rosy his state’s financial picture was compared with those of three Democratic states: New York, Illinois and California. Why should Congress help struggling states and cities, he argued, when the bulk of the aid would go to Democratic strongholds that he said had a history of fiscal mismanagement? 

President Trump has not ruled out sending additional money to states. But he has gone after Democratic governors, accusing them of mismanaging their finances, and charged that the party’s members in Congress ‘want help — bailouts — and, you know, bailouts are very tough. And they happen to be Democrat states.’ 

‘The Republican states are in strong shape,’ he said last month. ‘I don’t know — is that luck or is that talent?’ 

On Monday, Mr. Trump again accused Democratic states of dragging their feet on reopening their economies. ‘There just seems to be no effort on certain blue states to get back into gear,’ he said. 

Mr. Trump has said that ‘we’re in no rush’ to produce another round of federal pandemic relief, and branded Democrats ‘stone-cold crazy.’”

Is that luck or is that talent?

The president raises a good question about the alleged good shape that republican states are in compared to democratic states. Looking at the big picture helps put the situation in context.

First and foremost, because the president botched the federal Covid-19 response and continues to fail to this day, one can argue that most of the responsibility for the financial impacts of Covid-19 on all states belongs mostly to an incompetent president. He had a chance to stop Covid-19 and he failed.

That is a combination of very bad luck and lack of talent that hits all states. By framing the issue as blue state fiscal irresponsibility, the president and Trump Party senators deflect from their own responsibility for the federal failure that caused the financial damage in the first place. That is tribal partisan, anti-democratic authoritarian propaganda.

Second, blue states dominate states that pay more in federal taxes than they get get back in federal spending. In the past, the amount of the imbalance for some states such as California was enormous. At present these ten states are net supporters of all other states in order of which state pays the most per state citizen: Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Illinois, New Hampshire, Washington state, Nebraska and Colorado. Some former donor states are now net recipients. For example, starting in 2019, became a net recipient. In 2018, California paid $13.7 billion more in taxes than it received. Now California receives $12 more per resident than is sent to the federal government, about $480 million for 2019.

2014 data

In view of what GOP authoritarians want to do, blue states have every right to demand all of their excess federal money back, and to demand 100% equal federal spending among all states going forward. That would probably alter the reality of just how fiscally talented many red states really are. They aren't talented at all. They are welfare queens lucky to be subsidized by so many blue states. The authoritarian allegation that blues states are irresponsible is contradicted by the fact that some blue states have been major donors to red states for many years.

Third, the 2017 tax cut law that the GOP passed with no democratic votes intentionally targeted blue state taxpayers: “‘The Republican tax increase bill disproportionately hurts California taxpayers by capping SALT (state and local taxes) deductions. Today, the average California taxpayer takes a $22,000 deduction,’ de León pointed out. The GOP measure he said, would ‘cap it at $10,000, meaning Californians will be double-taxed.’” That is another bit of bad luck for blue states that are adversely impacted by the 2017 tax cut law, which mostly benefited wealthy people and corporations, including golf course owners.


Blue states look to be at least as fiscally responsible as red states, if not more so. Blue states have suffered from the bad luck associated with the fallout of the 2016 election, including an incompetent president that allowed Covid-19 to run free and wild. And, since the pandemic has not run its course yet and red states are leading the charge to reopen, they could face even worse impacts than they have so far.

All in all, the authoritarian GOP attack on bue states is built mostly on lies, deflections and blind tribal partisanship.

Dare Not To Care - Or Let's All Pitch In To Help The Rich

You may notice in all this nonsense about the lockdown and, increasingly, even masks that the "constitutional rights" being violated are...nothing of the sort. No one has the "right" to get service inside a private business, or to do so without wearing a mask if the private business requires it.

Clearly this isn't about the rule of law, so much as it is about the rule of white Christo-capitalists and the entitlement they think they're owed.

Dennis Prager said on his podcast a couple of weeks ago that "science" was getting the virus wrong: the death rate was being far overestimated, he said, because no attempt had been made to distinguish between c19 deaths and deaths unrelated to it. Therefore the straightforward solution was to isolate the sick and vulnerable from everyone else, and to let everyone else go about their business. This is actually a fairly widespread "case" being made on the right, and the fact that the last part is true makes it particularly believable and intuitive.

It is not true for us, however, because der Drumpf has refused to honor his oath of office and provide for the well fare of the American people by ensuring we have the testing capability we need to know who's sick and who isn't. He get's "lava mad" at his staff for his personal exposure, of course, but the rest of us can die in our thousands without so much as a crocodile tear from this psychopathic toddler in an aged and corpulent corpse.

This is, of course, the exact example his brownshirts are taking when they refuse to wear masks: it is our safety, not theirs, they put at risk. It's okay if the rest of us want to take their health seriously, but the "constitutional" principle in play here seems to be a desire for the "rugged individualism" they imagine our forebears embraced. Daring? If they dare to do anything, it is simply not to care. I've quoted Upton Sinclair so many times in the past, about it being difficult to get a man to understand something if his paycheck depends on his not understanding it. The lesson the pandemic is reinforcing is, however, that it's hard to get someone to unlearn a lie when their dinner depends on believing it.

It is especially hard when the other side has completely abandoned the working class, preferring moralizations about race, sex, and various "cause-isms" to offering the substantial defenses against the predator billionaire class that the working class needs.

Nobody's a better example at the moment of predator billionaires than Elon Musk, who has threatened to move his lucrative business Tesla out of California unless the state allows his employees to get back to work. And what do you think they produce? Cars? Not at all. They produce riches for the rich, for Elon himself. He has called the quarantine "fascist" which seems to me of a kind with calling a diver putting himself at personal risk to save a caveful of Thai children a pedophile. Disgusted doesn't even begin to express my feelings about it.

Nevertheless, his propaganda - and that of his class - is winning the day. These poor working class stiffs need to go back to work because they're just so poor. They'll be homeless and hungry without Musk's jobs. Which is true, though it needn't be. In fact what's happening here is that the American people have bought the proverbial bridge in Arizona, in which they positively refuse to demand of the Croesian class that they should make some of their unimaginable wealth available to keep the real producers in this country housed and fed.

The need for a minimum basic income has never been clearer, and yet those who should be threatening the Musks of the world are instead shooting each other at McDonald's because they can't sit inside the restaurant. And where in all this is the single most powerful voice of the opposition? At home, in his basement, quietly denying allegations of sexual misconduct.