explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3084: Unstoppable Force and Immovable Object

2025-05-06T20:31:08Z

172.70.126.111:

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)
::How do connect this comic with [[169: Words that End in GRY]]? I see no connection! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 16:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:::Communicating poorly and then acting smug. --[[User:Coconut Galaxy|Coconut Galaxy]] ([[User talk:Coconut Galaxy|talk]]) 11:52, 5 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)
::It's been a few years since I played WoW, but at that time there wasn't anything hiding the fact that the characters were clipping through each other. although I'm not sure what the other poster was talking about being fooled "into 'seeing' that two characters somehow slid past each other" since to me it always looked like two characters passed right through each other.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.111|172.70.126.111]] 20:31, 6 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)
:Two, if you're counting particles as "objects". At the level of particle interactions, two particles aren't merely distinguished by their spatial extent, but also by all their other "quantum numbers" -- charge, flavor, and others. You can absolutely have two particles, even two fermions, that have exactly the same wavefunction in space, but are distinguished by differing in other ways. (And in practice, something like this would be a fermion and a boson anyway.) [[User:Linkhyrule5|Linkhyrule5]] ([[User talk:Linkhyrule5|talk]]) 06:24, 6 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)
:''--Comment by [[User:Darth Vader|Darth Vader]] ([[User talk:Darth Vader|talk]]) 22:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC) deleted--''
:: 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)

I would say that nothing happens. If you think of Pressure and immoveable object: An infinite force would acting on an immoveable (think infinite mass) object would lead to no movement at all.
Well, actually a black hole would be created, swallowing up the object and the force. Since the object's further behavior now cannot be seen from outside mass could be reduced anf the black hole could simply evaporate.
Result: Force and objects actual mass would simply be converted into energy, representing a bomb. [[Special:Contributions/104.23.187.224|104.23.187.224]] 16:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Did someone pull out ChatGPT again for this explanation? The claim that the humor derives from the contrast between the casual meaning of "force" and its meaning in physics is ridiculous and patently false. A "force" in physics doesn't have a physical position to begin with and so it can't "pass through" anything. At this point I really feel like there should be some kind of policy on writing explanations using LLMs like ChatGPT because it almost never adds anything of value and it just complicates the explanation and makes the process of ''real'' people digging into the actual meaning and themes more difficult.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.102.223|172.71.102.223]] 18:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:Looking at what it replaced, it was an improvement, if not described as well as I think it should be. I believe it means to talk of the flux from a point-originated field (e.g. the most common fields normally deplete by inverse-square rule, all the way to infinity, from the point(s) of origin, though nuclear forces are... different).
:Given the depiction of the "unstoppable force" as actually 'moving', it has to be looked at as some kind of propagating pulse of 'forceness', albeit one that does not interact with the object seen as in its path (which would therefore neither react to the 'force' nor attenuate its potential effects). But that might need to be said in similarly short fashion (if my interpretation is even agreed with). Good luck! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.52|172.70.162.52]] 20:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
:Agree! The physical explanation of force is plainly wrong in the explanation text. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.207|172.68.110.207]] 23:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Could the objects be ''in front'' of each other instead of colliding? {{unsigned|Dardafus1|18:00, 5 May 2025}}
:Not both at the same time... [[Special:Contributions/172.69.224.82|172.69.224.82]] 19:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I contemplated this years ago while watching a {{w|Newton's cradle}}, and I came to the conclusion that the irresistible force would transform into an immovable object, and the immovable object would transform into an irresistible force. But honestly, a variation of what he proposes also makes sense, that the immovable object would conduct the irresistible force and retransmit it out the other side. The {{w|Black box}} view of the interaction would be the same either way. [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 20:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

2857: Rebuttals

2023-11-21T05:01:38Z

172.70.126.111: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 2857
| date = November 20, 2023
| title = Rebuttals
| image = rebuttals_2x.png
| imagesize = 328x437px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = The mainstream dogma sparked a wave of dogmatic revisionism, and this revisionist mainstream dogmatism has now given way to a more rematic mainvisionist dogstream.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a DOGSTREAM. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic provides a satirical take on the intricate layers of scientific critique and consensus. [[Cueball]] stands as a representative of the scientific community, addressing the audience with a statement that encapsulates the recursive nature of scientific debate. The comic touches on the propensity within the scientific fields to oscillate between embracing new evidence and adhering to established consensus. It reflects on the inclination to reject new findings not because they lack merit, but because they conflict with the prevailing theories that have weathered previous scrutiny and dissent.

The statement begins by acknowledging a shift in attitude, where "conventional wisdom," the accepted understanding within the community, has come under fire. This skepticism towards the status quo is not uncommon in scientific practice, where evidence is continuously scrutinized. However, the comic suggests that the reaction against accepted norms can sometimes lead to the dismissal of new data, not on the basis of its validity, but due to its misalignment with the current consensus. This reveals a tension between the progress of knowledge and the comfort of established belief systems.

Furthermore, the backlash against conventional wisdom is not a straightforward rejection but is layered with its own biases, implying that the dissenters may also fall prey to ignoring contradicting evidence. The comic thus highlights a multi-faceted argument within the scientific community, where there are multiple 'levels' of disagreement and ''rebuttal,'' each building upon the last.

Cueball's statement dissects the nuanced ballet of scientific thought through a sequence of phrases, each peeling back a layer of the academic onion. It starts with a backlash against the prevailing consensus. However, new evidence is being termed "inconvenient", hinting that it ''supports'' the prevailing consensus, even as many researchers are moving away from it. Thus, the researchers opposed to the prevailing consensus are being criticized for seeming to ignore this new evidence. Cueball acknowledges this criticism. But because the quote culminates in a "however", Cueball is presumably about to rebut that meta-consensus, such as by making an argument in defense of the researchers people are claiming are ignoring the new evidence.

The title text serves as an extension of this theme, offering a linguistic maze that mirrors the complexity and sometimes absurdity of academic discourse. It whimsically encapsulates how a challenge to mainstream thought can solidify into its own dogma, necessitating further revisionist waves, in an endless cycle of intellectual evolution and revolution. This self-referential loop wittily underscores {{w|Thomas Kuhn}}'s notion of the '{{w|Structure of Scientific Revolutions}},' suggesting that what is considered revolutionary at one time may become the very dogma that future revolutions seek to overturn. The title text delights in linguistic acrobatics, stringing together a series of portmanteau and near-repetitive phrases that dance on the tongue with the finesse of a verbal gymnast. "Mainstream dogma" suggests widely accepted beliefs, but it swiftly mutates into "dogmatic revisionism," a playful jab at the stubborn insistence on reforming the norm. This revisionism doesn't just adjust the current; it becomes "mainstream dogmatism" in its own right, a new orthodoxy birthed from the rebellion. And then, with a flourish, it yields to an even more whimsically coined "rematic mainvisionist dogstream," a hilarious [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoonerism concoction] that could leave even the most loquacious academic's head spinning. This nonsensical cascade mocks the sometimes pretentious and convoluted language that can plague scholarly communication, turning serious dialogue into a merry-go-round of terms that are as circular in progression as they are in logic.

{| class="wikitable"
! Title text term
! (Possible) meaning
! Nature of the term
|-
| Mainstream dogma
| The popular and currently unchallenged set of beliefs that comfortably flow with the academic current.
| Real
|-
| Dogmatic revisionism
| The stubborn insistence on changing established views, with a religious zeal for rewriting the scholarly scripture.
| Unlikely combination of real words
|-
| Revisionist mainstream
| Once the avant-garde, now the new normal; the rebel ideas that have become the establishment.
| Unlikely combination of real words
|-
| Dogmatism
| An unshakable adherence to the new creed, now fervently preached as the one true academic gospel.
| Real
|-
| Rematic
| Perhaps related to "remake" or "remix," implying a recycled, refurbished set of ideas in vogue once more.
| Not a real word
|-
| Mainvisionist
| A visionary yet mainstream adherent, with sights set on steering the scholarly ship into familiar waters.
| Not a real word
|-
| Dogstream
| The current of thought that flows doggedly along, resistant to change and comfortably narrow.
| Not a real word
|-
| Mainvisionist dogstream
| The dominant narrative that's been revised so often, it's hard to distinguish from its own parody.
| Not real words
|}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:[Cueball stands behind a lectern on a podium (apparently at an academic conference). Behind him is a banner, with illegible writing.]
:Cueball: It's become conventional wisdom that the backlash against the prevailing consensus led researchers to ignore inconvenient new evidence. However...

:[Caption below the panel:]
:In a field that's been around for a while, it can be hard to figure out how many levels of rebuttal deep you are.

{{comic discussion}}