Unstopable Vs Unmoveable

Originally posted by Mindship
The idea is, even with inertia intact (and I'm not sure inertia is fair in this thought experiment involving abstracts), the vector has changed. The Irresistable Force has been affected, the integrity of its Absoluteness has been compromised. The Immovable Object, on the other hand, remains in the same Absolute state throughout the encounter.

In a manner of speaking, the Irresistable Force blinked. 😉

yes thats wat i was trying to say

Originally posted by Metalmanx
Only problem is that Blob is not NEARLY as immovable as Juggernaut si unstoppable. Because of this, Blob gets run over. Juggy is only slowed down slightly.

There are not degrees of immovability and irresistability, "immovable" and "irresistable" are absolutes.

Originally posted by Mindship
The idea is, even with inertia intact (and I'm not sure inertia is fair in this thought experiment involving abstracts), the vector has changed. The Irresistable Force has been affected, the integrity of its Absoluteness has been compromised. The Immovable Object, on the other hand, remains in the same Absolute state throughout the encounter.

In a manner of speaking, the Irresistable Force blinked. 😉

For its integrity to be compromised, its inertia must be stopped.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
There are not degrees of immovability and irresistability, "immovable" and "irresistable" are absolutes.

For its integrity to be compromised, its inertia must be [b]stopped. [/B]

it can not be redirected off of another object unless that object is stoped even for a secoend then put backwards or were ever its

so their has to be a point were it stops redirected

Hulk has never stopped juggernaut (very important) ON HIS OWN POWER.

blob stands literally no chance at this. he COULD be in the same spot (hence unmoved) but he will be laying on his back.

i'm voting on blob remaining in the same spot, just, in a different position versus juggernaut being re-routed.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
There are not degrees of immovability and irresistability, "immovable" and "irresistable" are absolutes.

actually thats not true. juggernaut when you talk about him being "unstoppable" is from a physical standpoint. he could easily be haulted by somebody shutting down his mind. then his body couldnt function and is no longer "unstoppable".

same thing with magic. thor stopped him with his godforce. a magical blast. enough magics, or sufficient TP can stop the unstoppable. in this scenario anyway. you could also stop the "unstoppable" by negating its abilities. such as what war hulk did.

NOTHING is absolute in comics. not blobs ability to not be moved. not juggernauts ability to not be stopped. but when talking about the 2 words at hand... juggernauts power is more than blobs. hence, he will get moved or flattened.

Originally posted by KillAll
Hulk has never stopped juggernaut (very important) ON HIS OWN POWER.

I dont think people realized that in this tread, or they just dont wanna read the text of the comic.

Originally posted by KillAll

blob stands literally no chance at this. he COULD be in the same spot (hence unmoved) but he will be laying on his back.

That is also a possibility, after reading over Blobs profile, it says if a sufficient force could uproot blob, the surrounding area would go with him. I think Juggernaut would be a sufficient force.

However, what if the ground he was standing on was adamantium. What then?

Would Juggernaut then be Redirected?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
There are not degrees of immovability and irresistability, "immovable" and "irresistable" are absolutes.

Originally posted by He-guy88
it can not be redirected off of another object unless that object is stoped even for a secoend then put backwards or were ever its

so their has to be a point were it stops redirected

I have no idea what you are trying to say... but I have a feeling that it is wrong.

Originally posted by KillAll
actually thats not true. juggernaut when you talk about him being "unstoppable" is from a physical standpoint. he could easily be haulted by somebody shutting down his mind. then his body couldnt function and is no longer "unstoppable".

same thing with magic. thor stopped him with his godforce. a magical blast. enough magics, or sufficient TP can stop the unstoppable. in this scenario anyway. you could also stop the "unstoppable" by negating its abilities. such as what war hulk did.

NOTHING is absolute in comics. not blobs ability to not be moved. not juggernauts ability to not be stopped. but when talking about the 2 words at hand... juggernauts power is more than blobs. hence, he will get moved or flattened.

Whether or not Juggernaut can be stopped psychokenetically, magically, or otherwise is not in question. What is in question is what will happen when an irresistable force, i.e. the Juggernaut collides with an immovable object, i.e. the Blob.

Originally posted by Apolloknight
That is also a possibility, after reading over Blobs profile, it says if a sufficient force could uproot blob, the surrounding area would go with him. I think Juggernaut would be a sufficient force.

However, what if the ground he was standing on was adamantium. What then?

Would Juggernaut then be Redirected?

It depends on who approaches infinite inertia more quickly.

Well, simply put, Juggernaut's powers are mystical, Blob's powers are derived from his mutant gene.

As a rule of thumb, magic trumps mutant powers. The Juggernaut should be able to move the Blob, however I expect he'd be greatly slowed down first.

I know it's a poor argument, but magic has consistently been shown to the superior force in the MU.

In fact, a better fight might be Blob vs Ultimate Juggy, i.e. immovable mutant vs unstoppable mutant. Impossible to call that!

HE won't be slowed down...There were many objects which were thought to be "unmovable" and The Juggernaut just walked through them....If he runs towards Blob and charging up the second forcefield he has Blob has no chance.....

My two of my favorite character concepts colliding. I think the juggernaut would be victorious.

blobs "Immovability" is due to his own weight being multiplied due to a gravity feild he creates.

juggernaut's is due to a magical connection to a god which supplies his exemplar with all the power that he can give in order to keep him alive and well.

The way i see this is that their powers (immovability/unstoppability) would negate each other. They would lose any benefit that aspect of their power granted them when they collided simply because of the paradoxal nature of their existance. They would then during the collision simply rely upon their strength to maintain their possistion/movement and the stronger of the two would win.

that being juggernaut because it is immesurable versus class seventy five

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
There are not degrees of immovability and irresistability, "immovable" and "irresistable" are absolutes.

For its integrity to be compromised, its inertia must be [b]stopped. [/B]

IMO, if we are dealing with absolutes, then we are dealing with a Vector and a Scalar of infinite quality. We are dealing with abstracts, and as such their only qualities should be that which defines them: one being Irresistible, the other being Immovable. Inertia is a real-world factor which I do not feel is applicable here; it mars the philosophical purity of this thought experiment.

If inertia is going to be intro'd, then 1) to maintain the integrity of the Absolutes, inertia would have to be infinite for both the Vector and the Scalar; 2) we would have to assume a perfect transfer of energy in the redirection of the Vector (neither #1 nor #2 occur in the real world, as far as we know); and 3) why not intro other real-world characteristics which may affect outcome, such as size, shape and the environment in which this encounter is occurring?

I choose to see this encounter as a clash of abstracts defined exclusively in terms of their absolute qualities. In this way, extraneous (real-world) variables are a nonfactor in discussing what would happen, and the focus remains solely on the absolute qualities of each abstract.

balloon

In this situation my money would be on Juggernaut. Though I don't think Juggernaut is absolutely unstoppable to all physical forces and I don't think Blob is absolutely unmoveable, so they would probably both be affected in some way. Although if Juggernaut is actually unstoppable to all physical forces then by definition Blob couldn't be unmoveable because they cant exist together.

Originally posted by Mindship
IMO, if we are dealing with absolutes, then we are dealing with a Vector and a Scalar of infinite quality. We are dealing with abstracts, and as such their only qualities should be that which defines them: one being Irresistible, the other being Immovable. Inertia is a real-world factor which I do not feel is applicable here; it mars the philosophical purity of this thought experiment.

If inertia is going to be intro'd, then 1) to maintain the integrity of the Absolutes, inertia would have to be infinite for both the Vector and the Scalar; 2) we would have to assume a perfect transfer of energy in the redirection of the Vector (neither #1 nor #2 occur in the real world, as far as we know); and 3) why not intro other real-world characteristics which may affect outcome, such as size, shape and the environment in which this encounter is occurring?

I choose to see this encounter as a clash of abstracts defined exclusively in terms of their absolute qualities. In this way, extraneous (real-world) variables are a nonfactor in discussing what would happen, and the focus remains solely on the absolute qualities of each abstract.

balloon

[list=1][*]To maintain the integrity of the absolutes, the vector and scalar would need to approach infinite inertia.

[*]It assumes an equivocal transfer of energy.

[*]Indeed, why not? It would certainly make things more interesting.[/list]

lol blob makes a nice pillow for juggernut

juggs can out live him to forces at a stand still ones gota give blob is the only one affected by real world factors fatieg food sleep ect juggs just keeps chuggin on

Originally posted by Swanky-Tuna
In this case, they're just nicknames.

Basically, and moreso for the Blob. Since Blob isn't an Omega level mutant, his power to stay in one spot has a limit. And even if he were standing on adamantium, I'd say Juggernaut's superior strength and mystical ability to continuosly move forward would overroute Blob from whatever he's standing on, if he doesn't get flattened or run through first.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
[list=1][*]1. To maintain the integrity of the absolutes, the vector and scalar would need to approach infinite inertia.

[*]2. It assumes an equivocal transfer of energy.

[*]3. Indeed, why not? It would certainly make things more interesting.[/list]

1. Approaching infinite inertia means approaching the absoluteness of Vector and Scalar...and this is acceptable in the real world. But again, I prefer to see this as a clash of abstracts, with absoluteness already there (I mean, suppose the Vector's infinite inertia increases faster than the Scalar's? Starting off as absolutes avoids this).

2. Not sure what you mean by this (equivocal: uncertain? ambiguous? open to more than one interpretation?). My point was that the Vector should lose no energy at all in its redirection for its integrity to remain as absolute as the Scalar's. But then, I still state that the redirection itself has already destroyed the Vector's original condition.

3. Yes, it would...for another discussion. Right now, I want my abstracts as pure as the freshly fallen, proverbial snow.

I'm curious: what don't you like about the solution of Vector and Scalar (as abstracts) passing right through one another? This way, nothing has changed at all for either abstract. Or are you just seeing Vector Redirection as an alternative?

Originally posted by Mindship
1. Approaching infinite inertia means approaching the absoluteness of Vector and Scalar...and this is acceptable in the real world. But again, I prefer to see this as a clash of abstracts, with absoluteness already there (I mean, suppose the Vector's infinite inertia increases faster than the Scalar's? Starting off as absolutes avoids this).

2. Not sure what you mean by this (equivocal: uncertain? ambiguous? open to more than one interpretation?). My point was that the Vector should lose no energy at all in its redirection for its integrity to remain as absolute as the Scalar's. But then, I still state that the redirection itself has already destroyed the Vector's original condition.

3. Yes, it would...for another discussion. Right now, I want my abstracts as pure as the freshly fallen, proverbial snow.

I'm curious: what don't you like about the solution of Vector and Scalar (as abstracts) passing right through one another? This way, nothing has changed at all for either abstract. Or are you just seeing Vector Redirection as an alternative?

[list=1][*]An object with infinite inertia or mass would create a singularity and collapse under the weight of its own gravity.

[*]The transfer of energy does not have to be prefect so long as the redirection of the vector costs the scalar an equivocal amount of energy as is lost by the vector in redirection. If both objects are approaching infinite inertia at the same rate, this should not be a problem.[/list]

The only way this situation can be resolved is if the irresistible force is stopped and the immovable object is moved, or if the irresistible force is redirected and the immovable object is not moved. In the former instance, both lose their absolute nature, but in the latter, both retain their absolute nature.