Hang on, I’ll try it and find out.
…
…
…
Damn it, I blinked, and missed it, and now I’m going to have a REALLY difficult time explaining this mess to my boss.
In a puff of logic.
Yes. Zebra-crossing, anyone?
Division by zero, perpetual motion, the excluded middle included, imaginary numbers becoming real and showing up on people’s dinner checks, dogs and cats living together…
…ahh, who gives a shit? :rolleyes:
Million to one chances crop up nine times out of ten.
Define your frames of refrences. Nothing in the universe is immovable, unless you have something it can move relative to it, and then you don’t know which one is actually moving at all. In the world of relativistic motion, every body just wants to party but nobody knows where they put down their beers.
Besides, orange you glad I didn’t say burrito?
How annoying.
Look, dude, there isn’t a “real” answer to this. The question was conceived as an insoluble paradox. It’s no more possible to give the right answer to that question than it is to answer “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” What you’re asking for here is basically an infinite monkey scenario. Yeah, if enough people guess over a long enough period of time, someone will eventually happen to reproduce the same imaginary answer your read in your scifi book. (Or, more likely, someone else who read the same book and isn’t trying to be cute will come along and post it in spite of you.) But that’s not going to prove a damned thing, because whatever answer Banks came up with is no more correct than anything posted in this thread. So what’s the point of all this, exactly, except to give you a little thrill by yanking us around?
Well, except mine.
: Hands Miller a bourbon :
Hey, I got one: How do you keep a troll in suspense?
sigh Are you serious?
“One of the women is bound to get hurt.”
Ba-da-bum crash.
head explodes
Ahh, finally I get to let my geekieness shine at the SDMB!
The answer is:
“The objects are mutually annihalated and The Incredible Hulk wins with brain power!”
I knew the answer to this question at around 9 years old. This question and its answer are addressed inThe Incredible Hulk: The Hulk at Bay (Power Records Comic).
*—bow chicka bow chicka bow bow chicka bow—
“NnnnhhHH! Oh yeah, yeah!”
Balls.
A force is a vector quantity which, by definition, can not be unstoppable since it isn’t moving to begin with. If we ignore this particular semantic discrepancy, we can assume that this is more properly a force with infinite magnitude, acting upon an immovable object - that is to say, an object constrained in six degrees of freedom at all points, in whatever reference frame we choose to examine. In this case, since the force applied is infinite, but the object can not be displaced, nothing moves, but an infinite amount of stress is developed in the object. Alternately, if we choose to interpret the problem as meaning an unstoppable object colliding with an immovable one (such as an object with infinite velocity colliding with the constrained object discussed above), the only possible outcome is one which does not violate our presuppositions - namely, that the first object can not be stopped, and the second object can not be moved. One possible outcome which fits this criteria is the mutual annihilation of both objects, resulting in their non-existence. Another is a simple change in direction of the velocity vector of the first object, with zero energy losses or transfer of momentum to the second object in the process.
If cats always land on their feet, and buttered toast dropped on a carpet always lands buttered side down, if you were to strap a piece of buttered toast to the back of a cat and drop it, it should just hang in mid-air, right?
Well my intention was to start an interesting and/or fun thread but I see it’s somehow managed to upset you. I find it quite incredible to be honest but there you go, I keep forgetting that there are people like you out there.
You really do need to get over yourself…
That ain’t how we do things here, dude. You came in stating that there was an “official” answer, and we’re telling your there’s no such thing. If your book seriously claims otherwise it sucks.
I think wires have got crossed somewhere. I meant “official” in the context of the book.
OK, I’ll explain why I started this thread.
I happened to glance across at the bookshelf while logged on to this board and noticed the book I was talking about, remembering the enjoyment I got trying to work out the answer while I was reading it and the, “Ah, its so satisfyingly simple”, moment when it was finally revealed I thought that it might make a good basis for a thread. Fairly innocuous you might think.
Next thing I know some people are getting all bent out of shape and accusing me of all sorts of bizarre motives for starting it. :rolleyes:
Enough, already. Give us the title of the book, and the answer to the question. This better be good.
If its that big a deal, forget it. It’s not surprising that people lurk and don’t post if this is the kind of attitude they get when they attempt to start a thread.
You’re a total moron.
That’s fine.
But then, you’re obnoxious about it.
What you’re missing is that there is no “Ah, its so satisfyingly simple” answer. There is no answer. There’s no simple answer. There’s no complex answer. There is no “official” answer. There is no “unofficial” answer. The question itself is flawed.
We’ll all be glad if you go back to fucking lurking if you’re going to post stupid shit and then rip on people when they reply in kind.