I agree with Daerduo on this one Haven. The unstoppable force is an idea... like that of infinity. In fact it is an idea that actually uses the idea of infinity. The unstoppable force should in theory contain an infinite amount of force that cannot be reversed or held back in any way. The immovable object cannot be overcome or pushed back in any way. Thus gravity is an imperfect example. One can both resist and escape gravity completely, and though I can imagine the unstoppable force being slowed I cannot agree that it can ever be reversed.

Besides, gravity is created by an object and if you destroy that object you reduce the gravity accordingly. Thus if you obliterate the object you obliterate gravity. Thus it cannot be an unstoppable force.... Obliteration stops the force.

SO...
which part of my thesis disagrees with scientific laws? You quoted several sentences from me.

Regardless though, I don't feel my theory has been debunked. My theory, put simply, is that the force and the object will divert along an angular path curving away in an infinite arc, growing infinitely closer but never intersecting.

Daerduo wrote that it was a paradoxical arguement that could not exist.

I argue that it cannot exist on this plain of existence. Thus it would move on into a higher or lower plain, in which the issue could be resolved. The unstoppable force and the immovable object define that the objects in question could NOT move elsewhere in this plain. Thus they must move in a new direction... one that does not exist here.

Whether or not this happening would create a hole in the universe, causing everything to have never existed is debatable. I would say no....

We are multi dimensional beings my friends, but we are not omni dimensional beings. Just because we cannot comprehend or work naturally within or understand these other dimensions from our birth state does not mean they do not coexist, overlapping our own reality.

I was not the one who suggested gravity. Duo did. As for a force that cannot be reversed logically that makes no sense. If there is something pushing one way then logically it is possible for something to push back with the same amount of force. Saying that an object can do something and then say that what it does is impossible to do is just illogical.

Like I said earlier you were very general with your topic. Stop is s very general term and duo and I have both used seperate defenitions. We have both agreed that with my defenitions the Immovable force wins and with duos it is a tie. So it is kind of pointless arguing something that has been decided.

The record for immoveable object is 1-0-1 and the record for Unstoppable force is 0-1-1

The issue with this topic is that in order for it to be paradoxical defenitions must be contradicted and as the terms given were too general my counter example proved that it was not always paradoxical

I disagree with everything you just said. Refer to my last post.
we are dealing with posited entities existing on the edge of reason. of course they defy logic. we must find an answer where all definitions coexist. That is the challenge sir. Embrace the paradox.

I disagree with everything you just said, refer to my previous post

NO! I disagreed with what you said first!

I can fight the rest of your argument using twilight's posts alone.
Edit lol i just read havens post. With duos definition its a tie? methinks haven is confused. and your definition doesnt hold any weight anyways. When i said we both win, i was referring to the possibility of seperate definitions, which tbh is me being nice. But anyhow...
I myself am very sure that twilight and i have presented the correct argument, and also have addressed any possible exceptions, pretty rare tbh, sooo...next topic? Were finished with this one.

This can't be imagined by human minds, with our limited knowledge. We've never seen an unstoppable force or an immovable object, so we can't describe it. It's like trying to describe a color to a blind person.

We've never seen a black hole either yet we can describe it. People have also described black holes to me very well, and i have never seen them. All pictures of black holes are conceptual (or at least im aware of). The problem isn't with "we can't imagine it", the problem is that it is logically impossible to exist.

That's what the Hubble Telescope is for ;]