The site is currently in read-only mode.

The site is currently in read-only mode

# Thread: The Unstoppable Force vs The Immovable Object SOLVED

1. ## The Unstoppable Force vs The Immovable Object SOLVED

The Immovable Object vs The Unstoppable Force, who would win?

Well, what seemed to be an unsolvable problem has now been solved with SCIENCE!

And to be honest, I hoped for more fireworks and stuff.

2. This was solved years ago. A gnome dies.

I tried to find the video but it seems it's flagged as private for some odd reason.

3. That was pretty awesome to watch.

4. Originally Posted by Cernunnos
This was solved years ago. A gnome dies.

I tried to find the video but it seems it's flagged as private for some odd reason.
This all sounds like something rigged, that is fueled by wishful thinking, myes.

Originally Posted by Darsithis
That was pretty awesome to watch.
Yeah MinutePhysics is definitely one of my favourite channels on youtube. When I first heard of them I went on a marathon of watching all of their videos (which aren't very long anyway).

5. Well, if they pass right through each other, I wouldn't be the one with The Immovable Object. :X

6. Lol loved the video thanks for sharing!

7. crap video. the argument would be best explained by using the Juggernaut running into the Blob. since this video did not included either of those two, it is bad and wrong, in fact it is so bad and wrong that a new word must be used, this video is badwrong or badong.

8. Loved the video it was awesome.

9. Crappy video.
You just don't solve philosophic questions with science by plucking and complaining about each word used.

It's the same as: "What was first, the egg or the chicken?", and than start on saying nobody said it was a chicken-egg!
You don't take that line literally, you look to the meaning of the question.

10. Originally Posted by Kangodo
Crappy video.
You just don't solve philosophic questions with science by plucking and complaining about each word used.

It's the same as: "What was first, the egg or the chicken?", and than start on saying nobody said it was a chicken-egg!
You don't take that line literally, you look to the meaning of the question.
-_-

the video is awesome and you need to pull that stick out of your ass...

11. Originally Posted by AcrobaticMegalodon
The Immovable Object vs The Unstoppable Force, who would win?

Well, what seemed to be an unsolvable problem has now been solved with SCIENCE!

And to be honest, I hoped for more fireworks and stuff.
It's presented in a very straightforward, easily accessible manner... but in the end, it's science based on synonyms, assumptions, and shiny objects. In other words, not science.

He uses valid formulas and his train of thought is clear, but you can't do things like establish the following method (which he does):

-Interpretation 'a' or iA, states truth 'a' or tA
-However, interpretation 'b' or iB, states truth 'b' or tB

Now, following 'x' line of thought, and using the variables tA + tB, we can see the answer is 'answer'.

You can't state that there are two possible meanings for something and then cite BOTH of them to make a point. That's just a shiny logical fallacy.

I could say for example.

-The one person in that room is a boy named Tim.
-Some other people believe that the one person in that room is a girl named Tina.

Then, with shiny pictures, big words, and a glib turn of phrase, I can then say. We can clearly see that Tim and Tina both must like being in that room.

This what he essentially does by giving several possible definitions for 'immovable object' and 'unstoppable force' and then tossing them all in a hat and choosing variables seemingly at random to fit his hypothesis, creating a confirmation bias... kind of, except there was no real experiment.

Anyhow, don't get me wrong, I like the video, as I said, shiny objects and such. I just don't like that we are MORE susceptible than ever to glib demonstrations of nothingness because 'science' is so accessible now. We feel smarter about being dumb.

12. Originally Posted by joeyray
-_-

the video is awesome and you need to pull that stick out of your ass...
Jawohl, Herr joeyray.
In the future I will never have an opinion of my own and will first consult with you to check on what I am allowed to think.

*looks at video*

Nope, still think it's crappy.. Seems like I couldn't keep that promise for longer than two minutes.
Let me guess, you also think that the Big Bang Theory is awesome?

13. Originally Posted by Kangodo
Crappy video.
You just don't solve philosophic questions with science by plucking and complaining about each word used.

It's the same as: "What was first, the egg or the chicken?", and than start on saying nobody said it was a chicken-egg!
You don't take that line literally, you look to the meaning of the question.
Chicken/egg debate has already been solved, man.

It was the chicken

"The scientists found that a protein found only in a chicken's ovaries is necessary for the formation of the egg, according to the paper Wednesday. The egg can therefore only exist if it has been created inside a chicken."

Chicken eggs can only be created inside a chicken.

Science > Philosophy

14. Originally Posted by Kangodo
Jawohl, Herr joeyray.
In the future I will never have an opinion of my own and will first consult with you to check on what I am allowed to think.

*looks at video*

Nope, still think it's crappy.. Seems like I couldn't keep that promise for longer than two minutes.
Let me guess, you also think that the Big Bang Theory is awesome?
the stick dude... please, pull it OUT!

crap video. the argument would be best explained by using the Juggernaut running into the Blob. since this video did not included either of those two, it is bad and wrong, in fact it is so bad and wrong that a new word must be used, this video is badwrong or badong.
LMAO! I miss that movie so much.

I will stand for the opposite of badong: gnodab.

---------- Post added 2013-01-25 at 11:40 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Cernunnos
This was solved years ago. A gnome dies.

I tried to find the video but it seems it's flagged as private for some odd reason.
I REMEMBER THAT VIDEO! Oh the good old days...I used to be such a warcrfatmovie junkie. I got most of my current taste in music from wow videos. Now it's all just arena pvp videos.

P.S. OP's video belongs in the off topic/fun stuff forum.

16. Originally Posted by Count Zero
Chicken/egg debate has already been solved, man.

It was the chicken

"The scientists found that a protein found only in a chicken's ovaries is necessary for the formation of the egg, according to the paper Wednesday. The egg can therefore only exist if it has been created inside a chicken."

Chicken eggs can only be created inside a chicken.

Science > Philosophy
Incorrect, you can't call something without proof science, you can call it a scientific theory at best, at what point is a chicken considered a chicken? What if the beak is too short/long? What if it has more sparse feather coverage? What if it has the ability to fly instead of flap around flightlessly? At what point is it not a chicken?

How can it be proven that the official step that created a CHICKEN, and not a delicious egg-laying, flying birdbeast happened in the egg stage? Seems pretty likely actually that the evolutionary change happened at an embryonic level rather than a living creature level. So your 'science' seems a bit flawed.

ANNNNNYHOW, i agree with the guy you're trying argue against.

17. Originally Posted by Rhaide
Incorrect, you can't call something without proof science, you can call it a scientific theory at best, at what point is a chicken considered a chicken? What if the beak is too short/long? What if it has more sparse feather coverage? What if it has the ability to fly instead of flap around flightlessly? At what point is it not a chicken?

How can it be proven that the official step that created a CHICKEN, and not a delicious egg-laying, flying birdbeast happened in the egg stage? Seems pretty likely actually that the evolutionary change happened at an embryonic level rather than a living creature level. So your 'science' seems a bit flawed.

ANNNNNYHOW, i agree with the guy you're trying argue against.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/humor

Didn't think a statement like "Science > Philosophy" could be taken seriously

18. Originally Posted by joeyray
the stick dude... please, pull it OUT!
Nope.. Still not going to allow some random forumuser to dictate what I can or cannot find amusing.

Originally Posted by Count Zero
Chicken/egg debate has already been solved, man.

It was the chicken

"The scientists found that a protein found only in a chicken's ovaries is necessary for the formation of the egg, according to the paper Wednesday. The egg can therefore only exist if it has been created inside a chicken."

Chicken eggs can only be created inside a chicken.
But that's why I think it's a bad form of humour: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg
It was never about a chicken or an egg, it's about what point comes first in a loop.

People think they are witty by using science to answer a question that was never the question in the first place.
To me, that equates to the same level of humour as:
"What's up?" -"The ceiling! Hahaha"

Is it funny to take a question like that literally? Yes.
Is it still funny when people do it all the time? No.

20. Originally Posted by Count Zero
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/humor

Didn't think a statement like "Science > Philosophy" could be taken seriously
I'm not arguing anything about your science > philosophy comment. I replied directly to the claim you made that a solution had been reached about the chicken/egg debate, and the REAL news source you used to back it up. If you meant the entire post as a satirical comment to show your agreement with your the post you quoted, you didn't do a good job showing it was farcical. Usually farces don't post news articles that are serious in nature.

But that's just me being reasonable again I guess.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•