You’re close, I think, to what would happen if there really was an immovable object about to be struck by an unstoppable force.
If such an event were ever to occur, and we could study it, we’d get to find out whether an immovable object is truly immovable, and whether an unstoppable force is truly unstoppable.
My guess is that they would cancel each other out—the immovable object would move, and the unstoppable force would stop. Like a rocket sled hitting a concrete wall. Wall goes bust, sled stops moving.
The other option lies in the reason the two are immovable or unstoppable—if an unstoppable force is unstoppable because it does not interact with matter, then the immovable object remains unmoved and the unstoppable force remains unstopped.
In truth it’s a silly contradiction with the lack of information posed in the question, and, as Caledonian said, as such it is almost pointless to think about. The best answer you can come up with is “I don’t know”.
You’re close, I think, to what would happen if there really was an immovable object about to be struck by an unstoppable force.
If such an event were ever to occur, and we could study it, we’d get to find out whether an immovable object is truly immovable, and whether an unstoppable force is truly unstoppable.
My guess is that they would cancel each other out—the immovable object would move, and the unstoppable force would stop. Like a rocket sled hitting a concrete wall. Wall goes bust, sled stops moving.
The other option lies in the reason the two are immovable or unstoppable—if an unstoppable force is unstoppable because it does not interact with matter, then the immovable object remains unmoved and the unstoppable force remains unstopped.
In truth it’s a silly contradiction with the lack of information posed in the question, and, as Caledonian said, as such it is almost pointless to think about. The best answer you can come up with is “I don’t know”.