What would win?

[matt101harris]

What would win? The un-stopable force, against the un-moveable object????
lol

[Pedsdude]

The unstoppable force. The unmovable object could be dead.

[matt101harris]

Lol. So far i have head, the unstopable force - beacuse it would get bored, the unmoveable object beacuse it cant move lol And yours . WHats next

[matt101harris]

The unstoppable force. The unmovable object could be dead.

The unstoppable force could change the shape of the unmovable object. Applying a force to the object does not have to move it.
Also, the immovable object would by definition need to have an infinite inertia, which would mean infinite mass, and hence the object would collapse under its own gravity.

The force wins.

Ok i think i understood a few words there . lol

[Drofder2004]

You could also argue that an unstoppable force would need an infinite amount of energy.

As neither of these could exist, neither would win, the question is void.

[Soviet]

While we're at it, the egg came before the chicken.

[Drofder2004]

While we're at it, the egg came before the chicken.

Which egg?

[woCooM]

The one i ate for breakfast before my chicken and stuffin sandwich!

[Pedsdude]

I don't possibly see why some people think the egg came before the chicken. It sounds more plausable to me that the chicken may have given birth as humans do and eventually generated a protective shell to help with the process, rather than eggs randomly appeared and gradually gave birth to chickens. Or would someone on t'other side like to give a better explanation of how the egg came to be without the chicken?

[Pedsdude]

If you look at how species are developed, there are a series of genetic mutations which happen randomly. Some get passed on if the mutation has advantageous phenotypes. Over time groups of the same species are seperated by a physical boundary (mountains, river e.t.c) and so evolve differently to meet their surroundings, and the groups change independantly of each other. The point at which animals from the 2 groups can not produce fertile offspring they are different species.

So who's to say chickens used to not lay eggs, and then one was genetically mutated and happened to lay a primitive egg?

[Pedsdude]

In biology, the term egg is biologically ambiguous and the theory of punctuated equilibrium, for example, does not support a clear division between a chicken and the closest ancestors of that chicken. Both of those factors tend to contribute to the circular nature of the question (causing problems similar to either a hasty generalization or a fallacy of definition). Below are a few different definitions that could be assumed and their logical outcomes.[6]

* If the egg is not necessarily of any specific type: Then it could be said that the egg came first, because other animals had been laying eggs long before chickens existed, such as the dinosaurs. In biology, egg is used as a general term in this way.
* If only an egg that will hatch into a chicken can be considered a chicken egg: Then a re-consideration of the original question suggests: Some animal other than a chicken laid the first chicken egg which contained the first chicken. In this case the chicken egg came before the chicken. In reality, many scientific theories suggest that this would not have been a simple event. For example, the theory of punctuated equilibrium theorizes that the actual speciation of an organism from its ancestral species is usually the result of many mutations combined with new geographical surroundings, called cladogenesis.
* If only an egg laid by a chicken can be considered a chicken egg: Then a re-consideration of the original question suggests: The first chicken (which hatched from a non-chicken egg) laid the first chicken egg. In this case the chicken came before the chicken egg. Again, this would not necessarily be a straightforward event.

I was under the initial impression that the egg must be a chicken egg.

[Drofder2004]

Which is why I asked "Which egg?"

[aicaramba]

The unmovable object would win, since the unstoppable force would get deflected, I'm assuming the force does not get directed 100% straight at the object, because in a real world envoirment its very, very, very unlikely that some ís directec at an object with such precision.
Its a simple matter of statics. If the Force would hit the object at any angle, the force would break up in several resulting forces. One of them would be directed straight at the object, the other one would be directed perpendicular to the object.
Since the objects normal force is unstoppable, thus unending, the resulting force straight at the object(which is no longer 100%) would not be abled to beat the normal force of the object.
The resulting force perpendicular of the object, would not be held back anymore, so will have no problem contineuing its path.



Now, my english isnt very good, so there might be some 'translation issues', but the theory of it is correct.

Oh, ye, the chicken came before the egg, because god created the chicken, not an egg.
Just as god created adam and even, and not 2 babies.

[F |Madness| U]

Oh, ye, the chicken came before the egg, because god created the chicken, not an egg.
Just as god created adam and even, and not 2 babies.

Thats only true if your believe in god making the world and everything :S

I personally believe that theory is ridiculous and i would rather support the science theory(s).

[Drofder2004]

because in a real world envoirment its very, very, very unlikely that some ís directec at an object with such precision.

In a perfect environment it is more likely to have a direct 100% accurate hit than it is possible to have an immovable object or unstoppable force due to the constraints posted above (inertia for example), so if we allow for the possibilities of having these objects and force exist in a paradox, why should we not allow for a 100% accurate hit?