Sorry…I’m from the “old school” and there is NO WAY she’d be giving me that firm NO…uh uh…nope…this scene has never been played out in my house, nor in the house I grew up in….smh… it’s called knocked into the middle of next week!
arsmall, I’m with you. That behavior would not have been allowed in my house (either as child or parent). However, these days we’re not allowed to discipline a child, it might stunt his psyche or something equally inane.
@thebird55, I’m no theoretical physicist, but the paradox deals with kinetic versus rest energy, more so than mass versus energy, so although the force of mass and the force of energy should be equal, the two types of energy at work is the variable being analyzed. The energy of an unstoppable force would be kinetic, as opposed to the rest energy of a mass of infinite inertia. In either case, the infinite energy required by the two objects is impossible to acquire, as the unstoppable force would require an infinite energy supply, and the object of infinite inertia would essentially require its own gravity or else its infinite mass would force it to collapse upon itself. Sorry it wasn’t more clear in the comic, but I only have so many words that I can fit into four panels and often I push it as it is! :-)
The law of energy = the law of matter. Neither can be created or destroyed, they can only change forms. If they are both of “infinite” proportions, one is not an adequate opponent of the other, unless gravity (and velocity) is involved, which it isn’t in space. it could only happen here on Earth. Go do your homework kid!
@jpullan, that’s my point. If an object has infinite energy there would be no energy left over for immovable object. It could not have mass because that would require energy.
@thebird55, just because the unstoppable force has an infinite supply of kinetic energy, it wouldn’t deny the existence of an object with an infinite amount of inert energy. Whether or not the two could exist in the same universe together is the whole point of the whole exercise. It’s supposed to be self-nullifying. Besides, the concept of infinity exists solely in the human mind.
i_am_the_jam over 14 years ago
Unplug the TV, Mom.
alviebird over 14 years ago
I’m no physicist, but since mass *is* energy the other object cannot have infinite energy. Or is my logic specious?
Okay, why won’t it italicize?
ejcapulet over 14 years ago
I agree, unplug the TV and take away the computer until the homework is finished.
lewisbower over 14 years ago
You mean, man , like if God is all powerful, can he make an object so big he can’t move it, man? Oh, Man is the answer.
Plods with ...™ over 14 years ago
Where are the pair of ducks??
steelersneo over 14 years ago
Happens every night @ my house. “Alah forbid that YOU should have any daughters”
arsmall over 14 years ago
Sorry…I’m from the “old school” and there is NO WAY she’d be giving me that firm NO…uh uh…nope…this scene has never been played out in my house, nor in the house I grew up in….smh… it’s called knocked into the middle of next week!
JanLC over 14 years ago
arsmall, I’m with you. That behavior would not have been allowed in my house (either as child or parent). However, these days we’re not allowed to discipline a child, it might stunt his psyche or something equally inane.
alviebird over 14 years ago
Stunt, or prune? Bad growth should be stopped.
coffeeturtle over 14 years ago
I like this kid!
alviebird over 14 years ago
What! Have we no theoretical physicists here? Will no one answer my question?
(Not the last one. The first one, up top).
jpullan Premium Member over 14 years ago
@thebird55, I’m no theoretical physicist, but the paradox deals with kinetic versus rest energy, more so than mass versus energy, so although the force of mass and the force of energy should be equal, the two types of energy at work is the variable being analyzed. The energy of an unstoppable force would be kinetic, as opposed to the rest energy of a mass of infinite inertia. In either case, the infinite energy required by the two objects is impossible to acquire, as the unstoppable force would require an infinite energy supply, and the object of infinite inertia would essentially require its own gravity or else its infinite mass would force it to collapse upon itself. Sorry it wasn’t more clear in the comic, but I only have so many words that I can fit into four panels and often I push it as it is! :-)
mrprongs over 14 years ago
Would the force not just go around the object?
mrslukeskywalker over 14 years ago
The law of energy = the law of matter. Neither can be created or destroyed, they can only change forms. If they are both of “infinite” proportions, one is not an adequate opponent of the other, unless gravity (and velocity) is involved, which it isn’t in space. it could only happen here on Earth. Go do your homework kid!
alviebird over 14 years ago
@jpullan, that’s my point. If an object has infinite energy there would be no energy left over for immovable object. It could not have mass because that would require energy.
Plods with ...™ over 14 years ago
Thebird The bold/italic doesn’t play well with 2 letters
jpullan Premium Member over 14 years ago
@thebird55, just because the unstoppable force has an infinite supply of kinetic energy, it wouldn’t deny the existence of an object with an infinite amount of inert energy. Whether or not the two could exist in the same universe together is the whole point of the whole exercise. It’s supposed to be self-nullifying. Besides, the concept of infinity exists solely in the human mind.
coffeeturtle over 14 years ago
Eh, it was funny without all the explanation!
The Discovery Channel and NOVA on PBS already filled in these blanks. LOL!
BTW, nice work on this strip Mr. Pullan, and thank you for your contributions even in these forums!