How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Physics and Philosophy question   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Physics and Philosophy question

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Vagabond
Member
since 01-23-2004
Posts 171


0 posted 02-24-2004 03:52 PM       View Profile for Vagabond   Email Vagabond   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Vagabond


What happens when an irresistable force meets an inmovable object?  Anybody got theories?

The Freebird
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


1 posted 02-24-2004 03:54 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

Re-hab?

Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 02-20-2003
Posts 3696
Saluting with misty eyes


2 posted 02-24-2004 11:08 PM       View Profile for Ringo   Email Ringo   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Ringo

We dated, had a kid, got married and got divorced... in that order.
lol

Never be afraid to try something new. Remember that a lone amateur
built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.

Vagabond
Member
since 01-23-2004
Posts 171


3 posted 02-25-2004 08:05 AM       View Profile for Vagabond   Email Vagabond   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Vagabond

It's a paradox!

Vagabon the Lost One

Sudhir Iyer
Member Rara Avis
since 04-26-2000
Posts 7206
Mumbai, India : now in Belgium


4 posted 02-25-2004 02:34 PM       View Profile for Sudhir Iyer   Email Sudhir Iyer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Sudhir Iyer

I.F. : Hi, the name is 'Irresistable Force', and you are?
I.O. : Hi, I am 'Immovable Object'... pleased to meet you.
I.F. : Same here, gotta go...
I.O. : All right, I shall be waiting here, if you come back another day. Have a good one!

and I.F. zooms away because the force takes him away while I.O. stays  there holding on to memories... 'cos he is affected perhaps by static electricity and his hair stand up...



now, is this an acceptable answer?

Hu knows?

Have a nice day...

Regards
Sudhir
berengar
Member
since 01-02-2004
Posts 61


5 posted 02-26-2004 12:45 AM       View Profile for berengar   Email berengar   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for berengar

According to Iain Banks, the irrestibible object is resisted and the immovable object moves.
His characters in one of his books spent years in a cold castle trying to figure that one out.
Jamie
Member Elite
since 06-26-2000
Posts 3219
Blue Heaven


6 posted 02-26-2004 01:05 AM       View Profile for Jamie   Email Jamie   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Jamie's Home Page   View IP for Jamie

1. There is no immovable object
2. There is no irrestible force

Now if the darn near immovable object met the really really hard to resist force.....

There is society where none intrudes, by the deep sea, and music in its roar.
byron

sea_of_okc
Senior Member
since 06-15-99
Posts 595
Oklahoma City, OK, USA


7 posted 02-26-2004 02:06 PM       View Profile for sea_of_okc   Email sea_of_okc   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for sea_of_okc


KA-BLAMMMMMMM!!!!!!  
Cpat Hair
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Patricius
since 06-05-2001
Posts 12075


8 posted 02-26-2004 02:30 PM       View Profile for Cpat Hair   Email Cpat Hair   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Cpat Hair

that would be Opeth and Brad meeting in say.. Guam...
I expect, they would find a bar and have a drink... perhaps start a debate on the merits of illustrations in childrens books and whether or not they were subliminal political propoganda... and end up someplace along the coast not remembering how either of them got there..

but... I could be wrong..

they might remember how they got there.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


9 posted 02-26-2004 05:39 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Annihilation  

Newtonian physics -- force = mass * acceleration.

An object with irresistible force would have infinite mass and infinite acceleration (relativity thanks to Einstein)-- which are only possible at the event horizon of a black hole (an immoveable object - because it's own irresistible force (gravity) sucks up everything around it).

Sorry the answer is so boring.  
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


10 posted 02-26-2004 06:30 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

My answer was pretty darned close tho.

Cpat Hair
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Patricius
since 06-05-2001
Posts 12075


11 posted 02-26-2004 06:37 PM       View Profile for Cpat Hair   Email Cpat Hair   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Cpat Hair

Local rebel...
  now..in your assertion  "black hole (an immoveable object - because it's own irresistible force (gravity) sucks up everything around it)."

I think you fail to take into account that black holes are not stationary in the universe. many are found in the centers of galaxies or along the edges and those galaxies are still in motion, expanding as it would seem from the orginal big bang.

A black hole, by the way, was recently observed 'eating" a star. In the act, it only consumed approximately 20% of the mass and the rest was "spit out", which would also imply balck holes do not consume everything nor suck everything into them even with their huge gravitational forces.

since black holes are not proven to be immovable objects, does the rest of your assertion hold true?

personally.I prefer the Brad and Opeth answer.. lol


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


12 posted 02-26-2004 07:05 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

One step at a time...

First -- http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/star_destroyed_040218.html

Once matter or light is trapped in a black hole -- it can't escape.  The 'spitting out' is a metaphor for what was happening around the black hole due to the acceleration and inertial forces -- the star was stretched apart beyond cohesion -- in the process it also accelerated at a super rate -- the previous trajectory and inertia of the star (caused by the force of the big bang) and the resultant trajectory caused it to (pretty much) slingshot around the hole -- the other forces created in the process were able at a distance far enough away from the black hole to overcome the gravitational field (for now).

Anything that went beyond the event horizon is there (forever -- however long that is)

Second;
The motion of the black hole is due to the initial force of the big bang and whatever other forces acted on the black hole before it became a black hole -- there is no force that can now act on the black hole.  It is immoveable (in trajectory).

Third;
I liked Ringo's answer best...

Cpat Hair
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Patricius
since 06-05-2001
Posts 12075


13 posted 02-26-2004 07:19 PM       View Profile for Cpat Hair   Email Cpat Hair   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Cpat Hair

granted... Ringo's answer comes in a close second to my Brad and Opeth scenario... and perhaps even ahead of it if you discount the idea there had to be motion in that equation someplace.
    

now as for your reply...
yes anything that went beyond the event horizon was indeed captured, the spitting out metaphor is appropriate enough if you consider that your original statement was

"An object with irresistible force would have infinite mass and infinite acceleration (relativity thanks to Einstein)-- which are only possible at the event horizon of a black hole (an immoveable object - because it's own irresistible force (gravity) sucks up everything around it)."

If such a thing exists, it exist BEYOND the event horizon of the black hole and then only in a relative sense. it is relative in that the size of one black hole may be larger than another, does this make one black hole able to move another of larger size? and at the event horizon, would imply to me that point where the forces are balanced, beyond the event horizon anything is sucked in, but before the event horizon they may escape...

I think your answer interesting... but not sure I can agree with your assertions about black holes or with using it as an example.

Immovable objects.. as close as we might come to that would be perhaps the universe itself, though we do not know in fact if it is moving or not in some way.




Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


14 posted 02-26-2004 07:34 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Motion is a property indiginous to this universe -- therefore -- no -- the universe doesn't move -- as we understand motion -- relative to other universes in the multi-verse.  ( I just go on and on don't I? )

But it is within the realm of probability that the surface of a black hole actually IS another universe (which has it's own properties and laws of motion).

Yes -- obviously something can escape beyond the event horizon -- but it has to have enough velocity to do that -- therefore it would have to be very far away from the event horizon.... at the event horizon it has nearly infinite mass and acceleration approaching the speed of light -- there would be nothing with enough energy to change its course -- it's doubtful that at that point the gravity of the black hole itself is still acting on the object or its own inertia carries it into the hole.

I have not seen any theories *lately* on what happens if two black holes approach each other -- but I would doubt there is a basis for such a scenario.  I could be wrong -- but it would seem unlikely given the expansion of the universe.  

The only model that satisfies the parameters of the problem is an object approaching the event horizion of a black hole.  But, if you think you can move one... go ahead..  

*lately* added by moi on edit

[This message has been edited by Local Rebel (02-26-2004 11:06 PM).]

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


15 posted 02-26-2004 07:45 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Well -- it aint pretty...
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/merging_backhole_021119.html

whoda thunkit?

Cpat Hair
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Patricius
since 06-05-2001
Posts 12075


16 posted 02-27-2004 07:27 AM       View Profile for Cpat Hair   Email Cpat Hair   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Cpat Hair

"Motion is a property indiginous to this universe"
Sir, I respectfully ask how this conclusion was reached and what evidence you have to substantiate it.

"I have not seen any theories *lately* on what happens if two black holes approach each other -- but I would doubt there is a basis for such a scenario.  I could be wrong -- but it would seem unlikely given the expansion of the universe."

As you found for yourself such events do occur and occur within the realms of whole galaxies colliding. My question would be ( and this perhaps is where I am simple not getting your earlier arguments) If a black hole is contained within a galaxie and a galaxie is in motion, a black hole is in motion and moving at a speed that is relative to the speed of the galaxie itself. Now, the galaxie itself may contain more mass than the black hole though spread out over a far greater parcel of space. So is then, a galaxie as an objecct actually not larger than a black hole and if so is it not possible the combined mass of the galaxie is capable of moving the black hole in relation to itself and space?
Is it not also possible, that once the black holes which are coliding reach a point where the gravitaional effect of one is felt on the other, that one black hole will in fact mose the other? IF so, a black hole is not an immovable object.

As for event horizons and velocity and the ability of objects such as the star metioned earlier being pulled apart. While velocity and inertia are forces seperate from mass they are as Einstein theorized elements in the equation E=mc squared. I would offer that regardless of the massive power of a black hole or a super black hole that there was theoretically a way to escape from a black hole's event horizon by sacrificing mass to create the energy needed as long as the object being attracted has suffecient mass to sacfifice in the form of energy...

therefore..I would also argue a blck hole is not an irresistable force..

( I do just go on and on don't I..and in circles at times as well...)

Convince me with science LR... I truly am interested as to whether my assumptions are incorrect or if my mind has wrapped around this question in such a way as to make logical sense of it, since I know little to nothing of physics.)
berengar
Member
since 01-02-2004
Posts 61


17 posted 02-27-2004 07:01 PM       View Profile for berengar   Email berengar   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for berengar

Oh, to be a fly on the wall if ever Brad and Opeth ever do meet in a bar ... (not least because it's handy to be mobile)
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


18 posted 02-27-2004 08:59 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

I have been a fly on the wall here ...


But I wonder, between Opeth and Brad, which one is the irresistable force, and which one is the immoveable object?  


Brad's just not that irresistable,
and Opeth's not as immoveable as he thinks.  

(Gotta have some fun.. sooner or later)

Stephen.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


19 posted 02-27-2004 09:28 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Ahhh, man.

Stephan, you're the pin to my baloon.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


20 posted 02-27-2004 11:18 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Aye Cap'n Ron... this aught to be fun for sure...

Hang onto yer warp drive...

a few links to peruse first: http://piptalk.com/pip/Forum8/HTML/000426.html#1
http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw02.html
http://courses.washington.edu/phys55x/A%20New%20View%20of%20Our%20Universe%20Only%20One%20of%20Many.htm
http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/6929/h_kaku2.html

So, while I say that motion is local to our universe it isn't, necessarily exclusive to this universe -- but doesn't exist in h-space or 'between' universes -- therefore the universe doesn't 'move' per se..

And you aren't exactly wrong... I'm merely being very exact about the specifications of the problem.

The problem only asks for an 'immoveable' object -- not a static one.

If you want a static object -- that's a scope change -- and I'll need a signed Change Order Request with an authorization for an upcharge to accomodate that.  

An object at the event-horizon of a black hole has irresistible (infinite) force -- but cannot move the black hole.

Remember -- mass increases with acceleration.. an object at the event-horizon is at near-light speed -- if it passes the event-horizon it has to eventually break the speed-of-light barrier to escape -- which also means it's mass will increase -- even if it loses mass it will still have to reach infinite mass... see?

But if a worm hole opened up at the exact moment the object reached the horizon -- it may be possible for it to escape -- but -- that would seem a very remote probability.  Again -- I could be wrong.

Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 11-03-1999
Posts 4427
Oklahoma, USA


21 posted 02-28-2004 09:53 AM       View Profile for Not A Poet   Email Not A Poet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Not A Poet's Home Page   View IP for Not A Poet

'Scuse me LR but an object at the event-horizon does not HAVE irrestible force, unless maybe it is another similar sized black hole. Instead, it is being subjected to irrestible force. Related to the black hole, its own force is negligible, even insignificant. Other than that, I found your argument interesting
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


22 posted 02-28-2004 10:48 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

hehe...

but it has infinite force...(impact)

force = mass * acceleration...

nothing -- except a black hole -- could resist it -- but you're correct -- two black holes do make a big mess...

in theory -- the object that has passed the event horizon would already be another black hole... i wouldn't want to get hit by it
Cpat Hair
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Patricius
since 06-05-2001
Posts 12075


23 posted 02-28-2004 11:12 AM       View Profile for Cpat Hair   Email Cpat Hair   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Cpat Hair

Since I am sitting here, waiting for one of those geek thingsI run to finish and have a fe moments to read and respond, I thought I'd read this again ( trying to see the fine line you are drawing) and wrap my own head around the physics and theories.

What I find, is that your original statement "Motion is a property indiginous to this universe"
has left me with this understanding of what you originally meant:

Motion as an indiginous property of this universe was or is truly native only to our universe and was "created" or exists only in our universe.

I think I understoof your argument then to be that it may not be confined only to our universe, but what might be motion in another universe or between universes can not be seen as motion as we know it.

OK...
Motion as defined by webster:
mo·tion [ mṓsh’n ]

noun  (plural mo·tions)

1. act of moving: the act or process of moving or the way in which somebody or something moves
walked with a swaying motion


2. a movement: a movement, action, or gesture
made a quick motion of the wrist


3. power of movement: the power or ability to move something


4. proposal: a proposal put forward for discussion at a meeting


5. law application to a judge or court: an application made to a court or judge for an order or ruling in a legal proceeding


6. music movement from one note to another: the movement from one note to the next by a voice or instrument


7. U.K. physiology passing of solid waste from the body: the passing of solid waste matter out of the body through the anus


8. U.K. physiology stool: a piece of evacuated fecal matter ( dated ) ( often used in the plural )



transitive and intransitive verb  (past mo·tioned, past participle mo·tioned, present participle mo·tion·ing, 3rd person present singular mo·tions)

signal to somebody: to gesture or signal something such as a request or intention to somebody
motioned me over and told me to sit down


[14th century. Via Old French, from, ultimately, the past participle of Latin movere  “to move” (source of English move).]


go through the motions to do something in a perfunctory or mechanical way, without enthusiasm or commitment


put or set something in motion to cause something to start moving, functioning, or happening

If we stick to definition 1:

1. act of moving: the act or process of moving or the way in which somebody or something moves
walked with a swaying motion
and define Moving as:
an act of changing location or position

then I am drawn back to the bubble analogy used in the article you linked to and left again with the belief that motion is :
1. A term to describe the relative position of items and how they change.
2. observable in our universe as a physical attribute of variable positions between objects
3. theoretically able to be applied across a universal discussion as the relative possible positions of universes in relation to each other as well as to the possible changes of those positions.
4. A term which must be used in the context of another object or "space" as it is only by making one thing relative to another that changes are easily measured or discussed.


I am at this time sir, respectfully asking if my first assumption of what you meant was correct, or if I took too literally your intent related to motion and you are modifying that interpretation at this time.

If modifying, this indeed may require a change of scope request and further efforts to LOE the requested changes which will result in analyssis charges plus any additional hours being billed for the required changes

As to the immovable and irrestistable concepts, I would argue now, that infinite mass in our universe could only have existed the millisecond before the big bang, and as such was instable. A black hole may contain qualities similar to the universe before the big bang but can not practically be considered as having infinite mass nor since it is fact unable to effect all matter in the universe and all anti matter in the universe not and irrisistable force..

by all means.. help me see where the logic fails..or where I am mixing apples and oranges in the concept..

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


24 posted 02-28-2004 11:40 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Good work...

But here's something you need to factor in -- motion is dependent upon the four dimensions that most of us are familiar with -- our universe actually has 10 dimensions and possibly 25 -- for some reason we only perceive and 'use' four.

Motion is the change of positions in the three cardinal dimensions over the fourth dimension -- time.

In other universes time wll not exist as we know it -- in some it may run backwards -- or at very different rates -- even in our own universe -- there is relativity with speed -- but imagine a universe that uses 5 dimensions -- or even 10?  

When I speak of motion -- I refer to it as we percieve and use it in this universe -- which may be applicable to some other universes but not all.

In h-space (or negative vacuum) time would be completely non-existent -- which would be a topic for Essorant

The black hole is composed of matter -- which is not the same thing as mass -- and therefore has some properties that make it behave like other objects -- namely -- it has a gravitational field -- how much matter is in the black hole will determine its' gravity.  

The matter in an object approaching the event horizion has mass relative to its speed -- that mass generates a force (of impact -- like a bullet -- I'm speaking of mechanical force )  which if infinite -- is irrisistible.  


Vagabond will be notified of replies
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Physics and Philosophy question   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors