I disagree Haven.

How is immovable object exerting Any force? It isn't moving! It's not like the Juggernaut rammed into a wall and the wall punched him in the face.

It absorbs the force, and if it is truly immovable then it has an infinite capacity for absorption.

I believe, if anything.... IF ANYTHING ... A singularity would be created taking all of those two opposed entities and directing them both down into another dimension at the exact point of impact, and like an indivisible number.... the hole would go on forever trying to solve itself. One trying to overcome the other... and so the event would depart this plane of existence

that was deep man

but the work force applied to the immovable object is countered by an equal force in 3 resistances:
gravity (for the objects weight)
inertia (the object is at rest then suddenly is attempted to be moved)
and friction (obvious)
so there is a counter force exerted from the immovable object

I lol'd.
Anyways...unstoppable force implies that where it exerts its force, nothing can stop it. -> nothing can exert a equal and opposite force OR greater force OR absorb the force. -> the immovable object does not exist.
In your example, Haven, the force being exerted onto the wall is not unstoppable. You confuse "unrelenting" force with "unstoppable". The wall is stopping the force from moving itself. The force has been stopped. Contradiction.

QED. yo.

EDIT: Lol just read twilight's post. Thus punching a hole in the space-time continuum and the fabric of reality. And the universe will...never have...existed...

The force is strong within this one.

It al depends on your definition of stopping. I believe that in order to stop the force since it is specifically called a force you have to prevent it from exerting force period. The force is still pushing just going nowhere so it was not really stopped. It never said that the motion was unstoppable but the force. So it doesnt matter wether the object moves or not as long as the force is still exerting itself.

So for this it al depends on what unstoppable is referring too. And as it has not been specified then I can safely assume it is modifying force not motion.



Scientific laws created by Newton and widely accepted by everyone in the scientific community beg to differ.

then I think your definition is flawed. unstoppable force SHOULD refer to a force that can move everything. A unrelenting force is a bit pitiful tbh. Gravity is an unrelenting force, not an unstoppable force. If it were unstoppable, we would not be able to jump. I guess it could be argued unstoppable=unrelenting, but with all honesty it shouldn't. Going by the accepted, logical definition of unstoppable force/immovable object, i.e. a force that can move everything and an object that cannot be moved, I think that my argument would be correct.

Gravity is an unstoppable force. You can resist but you cannot stop it.

ok now we're just playing with definitions. I don't think gravity should be classified as an unstoppable force. It's a constant force. Not unstoppable. It pulls you down, I jump, thus overpowering gravity and so it isn't unstoppable. But I think at this stage we're just screwing with definitions.

We win, how's that?

EDIT: As a sidenote, funnily enough, whenever the unstoppable force vs immovable object analogy is used, in sports, competitions, whatever, immovable object always ends up winning, at least in my experience.

No, you defy the force but gravity is still there and ends up pulling you back down.

rockets overpower gravity, yes? thus gravity isn't unstoppable, yes?

they temporarly escape however they always come back down on one planet or another. Just look at satellites. They go up but after a time they come back down.