explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3084: Unstoppable Force and Immovable Object

2025-05-04T12:54:28Z

162.158.127.25:

lol, i remember this explanation from a minutephysics video. however, the version of the problem i heard, which is actually paradoxical, is "what happens when an immovable object meets an '''irresistible''' force?" [[User:Not without text|Not without text]] ([[User talk:Not without text|talk]]) 00:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:That was also literally my first thought. [[169]], anyone? --[[User:Coconut Galaxy|Coconut Galaxy]] ([[User talk:Coconut Galaxy|talk]]) 05:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:The MinutePhysics video: [https://nebula.tv/videos/minute-physics-immovable-object-vs-unstoppable-force-which-wins/ on Nebula] or [https://youtu.be/9eKc5kgPVrA on YouTube] --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 09:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Come on, it's just an arrow made of W- bosons, right? [[User:TheTrainsKid|TheTrainsKid]] ([[User talk:TheTrainsKid|talk]]) 03:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Is there no joke here? Is it just the solution? [[User:Broseph|Broseph]] ([[User talk:Broseph|talk]]) 06:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I remember an explanation by Isaac Asimov in one of his books which was like "by definition, an immovable object will not move at all under any force in the universe, and an unstoppable force will move all of the objects in this way" and then explained how the definitions conflicted each other and as such prevented both from being able to register for the hypothetical at the same time [[Special:Contributions/172.64.236.161|172.64.236.161]] 06:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

In the first MMO games, collision was a big problem. A player could block a doorway, and nobody else could go through. It was even worse if the player had "follower" characters or pets.
One solution was to have characters automatically "push" stationary characters out of the way, but that caused other problems. Modern MMO's such as World of Warcraft simply allow characters to pass through each other, as depicted in this xkcd comic. Our eyes fool us into "seeing" that two characters somehow slid past each other. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.228.132|172.68.228.132]] 07:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:Our eyes, or the programmers? I don't have that much experience with MMO's but they probably do render it in specific way to make that effect. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 02:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

When the two things pass through each other, at the instant where they both occupy exactly the same space, is there one object or two? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.216.159|162.158.216.159]] 08:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:Given that force is not an object, one. Just like there was when they weren't colocated. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.220|172.69.43.220]] 08:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
::OK, but what about the 'unstoppable force carrying particles' in the title text? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.204|172.69.194.204]] 19:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:::I understand it as if a particle interacting with the object counts as 'stopping', in which case an unstoppable force-carrying particle wont have any effect. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.120.157|162.158.120.157]] 20:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

The force could simply go around the object. The object hasn't moved, and the force wasn't stopped. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 11:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

: Redirecting would imply the force could be redirected, allowing us to trap it inside a closed loop, effectively stopping it. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.57.132|172.70.57.132]] 15:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

This is like the Chinese saying the spear and the shield. Using this comic, I guess spear wins [[User:Aprilfoolsupdate!|Aprilfoolsupdate!]] ([[User talk:Aprilfoolsupdate!|talk]]) 14:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Gonna be honest, I think this is my least favorite comic of the last 500 or so. It's a solution already given by minutephysics, except with all the perspective about reference frames, and what people actually mean with these terms replaced by a caption with a superiority complex. I suppose it gets pretty hard 3000 comics in, but c'mon.
[[Special:Contributions/172.68.35.83|172.68.35.83]] 19:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Ok, as we're giving personal opinions, I can't let it stand. Some might not exactly be total belly-laughs, but I think they each still have something to them and I prefer a mix of tones (and a wider spatter of focuses and treatments) to them all being exactly the same aspect of 'high-humour'. Not that I'd care to rank them, anyway, but I'm nowhere near ready to go off and make disparaging comments as if this site was bitchaboutxkcd.com, or whatever.
:: I won't try to tell you what to think, yourself, though maybe you should just roll with it. If you really don't like a comic, there'll be another along in two or three days. That might be even 'worse', as well as 'better', but then you can be even more unchill about ''that''. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.82|141.101.98.82]] 22:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

All forces are irresistable. No objects are immovable. If any force acts on any object, the object moves (or deforms). [[Special:Contributions/172.68.84.145|172.68.84.145]] 22:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:Can we not say that Dark Matter, if that's what we imagine it might be, entirely resists the electromagnetic force? (It's one of my possible interpretations of the comic, though without enough hint that it was intended to have me annotate the Explanation accordingly.)
:That said, it's ''unstoppable'' force (and there's are no Cavorite-like forceproof barriers), and it's rather that ''immovable'' objects are awkward to imagine under Relativity and there being no actual preferable frame of reference in the first place. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.113|172.69.195.113]] 22:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I would say that, since a force is mass*acceleration, the force cannot yet be stated while passing through the immovable object, because the object have to accelerate to calculate the force. Therefore, the "force" is only potential or kinetic energy at this point.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.127.25|162.158.127.25]] 12:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3075: Anachronym Challenge

2025-04-12T18:28:21Z

162.158.127.25:

Shouldn't "Anachronym" be "Anachronism"? The listed items aren't archaic acronyms. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.83|162.158.63.83]] 17:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
:No, "-nym" means name, so this is names that are outdated [[Special:Contributions/104.23.190.60|104.23.190.60]] 17:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
:: (The OP) Ah, I see now. An anachronym is a term used in an anachronistic way (like tin foil which isn't made of tin anymore), where an anacronym is an word that started as an acronym but is now treated as a word (people no longer think of it as an acronym). Neither term being in common parlance, and being only one letter different, my search for a definition got them confused.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.35.94|172.70.35.94]] 00:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why he should be paying with paper money. He can easily pay by credit card ... using virtual debit card on his phone. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 17:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
: Paper money might not be made from paper anymore - at least, it isn't in NZ, where I live. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.0.130|172.69.0.130]] 17:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::I think “paper money” is about paper no longer being made from papyrus. US bank notes are printed on rag paper, which is indeed a kind of paper despite containing little or no wood pulp.--[[User:Seakingsoyuz|Seakingsoyuz]] ([[User talk:Seakingsoyuz|talk]]) 18:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Agreed. Rag paper is not just "a kind of paper", it's the original kind of paper (papyrus is not paper in any usual sense, because it is not made from pulped fibers). When paper was invented in China, it was made from rag fibers, and it was still made like that when it was first produced in Europe.

:: I don't think 'paper money' should be designated as being made of paper here. Everyone knows that paper money doesn't feel or act like paper. It's incredibly hard to rip. [[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]] ([[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al|talk]]) 18:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::: Being Canadian, I thought the reference here was to what's described at Wikipedia as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer_banknote Polymer banknotes]. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.127.25|162.158.127.25]] 18:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:The "card" in credit card seems to come from Latin and Greek for a piece of paper or papyrus. So a credit card, now made of plastic, metal, semiconductors, etc. might be considered an anachronym. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.95|162.158.41.95]] 19:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Adults who "enjoy" rubber ducks include programmers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging [[Special:Contributions/172.71.95.27|172.71.95.27]] 18:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

The word money came from words that meant coin. The word coin evidently came from wedge shaped. Not quite anachronym, though somewhat anachronism. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.41.95|162.158.41.95]] 19:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Surprised "lead pencil" didn't make the list [[Special:Contributions/172.68.12.109|172.68.12.109]] 19:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Duck Tape is no longer made from ducks! [[User:IIVQ|IIVQ]] ([[User talk:IIVQ|talk]]) 19:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

"digital money" shouldn't be listed as what "paper money" is actually made out of. Nobody would say "I'm paying with paper money" if they are paying with some digital currency. The anachronism is "paper money" being actually made of linen or whatever hi-tech fibers. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.254.211|172.70.254.211]] 19:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC) anonymous user
:Not even ''fibers''. Sheet-polymers (with loads of complex embedded and pressed-in features) are becoming the new go-to for banknotes, in a number of countries. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.135|172.68.205.135]] 23:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

My wife suggests that this is much easier if you are tech shopping: Apple, Mouse, Spam, Phish, Cookies.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.225|162.158.78.225]] 20:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
:"Click mouse to accept cookie" meme - featuring rodent and confection. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/06/e6/7d/06e67d6ee5a2afa112bf548463e97125.jpg [[Special:Contributions/172.70.35.94|172.70.35.94]] 00:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Not sure why "sidewalk chalk" on there and who decides that calcium carbonate is allowed to be called chalk, but calcium sulphate is not. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.196|108.162.216.196]] 05:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
:I came here wondering why it was on the list, but for a different reason: It's never been made from sidewalks. Yes, I actually needed to read the list to clear up the misconception. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.127.25|162.158.127.25]] 18:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

== Steel ==

{{w|Stainless steel}} ''does'' contain Fe, so "iron" ain't ''that'' "wrong". [[Special:Contributions/172.70.35.95|172.70.35.95]] 05:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

"Cutlery" specifically refers to metallic implements with a cutting edge. Knives, scissors, and swords are cutlery; Spoons and forks are not cutlery. Table knives, forks, and spoons, collectively are "flatware". [[Special:Contributions/162.158.164.155|162.158.164.155]] 10:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

== Paper ==

I just want to point out that paper made from cotton fibers instead of wood pulp ''is still paper''. You can buy it in the store. There are non-paper banknotes now, but not in the U.S., and I'd be surprised if polymer banknotes were ever called "paper money". [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]] ([[User talk:LtPowers|talk]]) 12:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)