Quote (shwknight @ Wed, Jul 29 2009, 02:27pm)
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)
If you are concentrating upon the idea they bounce off each other then if you prerequisite and infinitesimally divisible spacial dimension then through calculus you get to an equation under both the elastic and inelastic that there is a moment the unstoppable cube is stationary before it changes course. That is, if it rebounds at the same trajectory as it originally traveled.
Put more simple if space can be divided up as much as you want to (infinity divided) then...
You can throw an object at a wall and it will bounce back to you.
To do so it will travel the same path.
Therefore at some time it will have to come to a stop before it can retrace it's path.
So...
In this instance we are defining unstoppable as unable to be at speed = 0 and space as being infinitely divisible.
The idea of unstoppable could be defined so many ways it is totally subjective. We could just say that means it will over time keep moving somewhere and that outside factors such as friction will not hinder it.
The fact that squares are two-dimensional and will be outside all known primary universal forces and Physics as we know it, makes the whole though process fun to entertain and possibly useful to helping us solve problems by thinking unconventionally.
I'm actually interested in someone who can form a decent proof or at least argument, that the two squares will become one by some decent Science.
