It appears as though a phase-through is the only plausible scenario, granted it forces you to make additional assumptions, but at least it allows for the preservation of both the properties of the first and second objects...

You could toss in some fancy calculus and define stopped in a way that would satisfy that.

I was using a classical model.

Since space could be quantified (see planks constant) as to not require infinite positions the idea works fine.

Consider a computer program like Pong. It behaves like this and between the if/then statements the little square is always going somewhere.

-----------

We could also draw a conclusion since they are squares and 2 dimensional, that they could pass through each other because there is no mass so F=MA is out the window and ideas like the strong and weak nuclear force are useless as well, therefore the objects basically have no substance as we can define it and there is no rational explanation of why they cannot occupy the same space.

It is all "theoretical fun and games".

Stimulating enough on an entertainment standpoint, I spent a minute to think about it though.

This post was edited by WhirlingDervish on Jul 25 2009 01:30am

this is hard /:

Your question is fucking stupid.

The reality that the cubes are in ceases to exist, as the Grand Architect exclaims "Cannot compute!"

This post was edited by AEtheric on Jul 26 2009 02:33am

Very nice!

the moving cube would be continuously smashing into the unmovable cube

There was never a mention of wether the cube has to be "hard" If the cube was flexible then there would be no "instant of immobility". When the leading side of the "unstoppable" cube contacted the leading side of "the immovable" cube it would reverse course and be in constantl motion as it's rebounding the other way
(I really have no idea but it works with molocules so why not a hypothetical cube (-: I mean look what happens when you heat water up, the molocules NEVER stop for even a nano second)

Even if it bounces it still stops for an instant, consider the following scenario:

You are jumping on a trampoline and you are in the air, you represent the unstoppable cube and the trampoline represent the immovable cube (exclude factors such as friction/air res etc...[pretend you're in a vacuum])

When any part of you strikes the trampoline it gives and then rebounds you back into the air i am speaking of the instant in which the trampoline is at its lowest point and has been stretched to its limit

It would be like throwing a car into reverse @ 50 mph and then flooring the gas (not recommended fux up you trans) at some point the car stops and reverses direction the car must first reach 0 mph before it can get to -10 mph (rebound represented as negative #)

Molecules are ALWAYS moving, we are talking about the object itself as a whole (excluding absolute zero/extenuating circumstances...)

This post was edited by kruikoi on Jul 29 2009 07:00pm

But your talking 2 pliable objects in your scenario, I'm talking just the "unstopable" object as being pliable, the "immoveable" object has to be solid or it wouldn't be "unmoveable". Try this scenario, you throw a rubber ball against a brick wall, when the part of the ball hits the wall it doesnt stop it rebounds off the wall and causes the rest of the ball to reverse and start moving in the opposite direction (just like a molecules)
And as far as the car scenario goes that doesn't apply because it's not making contact with anything so it HAS to slow down to change directions