I was afraid that making this comic might cause the universe to implode in on itself.
What happens when the reader meets the Twogag Facebook page?
so. nothing happened? indestructable wins?
probably hapened what since the acid whas unable to destroy that object, it selfdestructed
Not necessarily. The idea is that you can’t see the bottom of the container anyway, so what happened is essentially unknowable. Then they play it off as not being very interesting anyway.
Something happens that is so magnificent that we readers aren’t even privy to it?
Or something to boring to bother drawing.
They probably fused together or something like that
And thus, the first Wayne was born.
Would’ve been awesome if the last panel had the universe reshaping itself from outside the window…
It probably just went through the floor
I guess you guys don’t get it What Frank is showing is how when an unstoppable force meets an unmovable object it creates an equal and opposite reaction. Even though this isn’t real nice, I suppose I could relate it to some real stuff.
It’s like, you see it and then you are like, “I wonder if wrestling is on today…”
Ha, physicists! If m/infinity=0, than -infinity=infinity. But -infinity<infinity, thus we have a contradiction, meaning the assumption is false.
Infinity is the byproduct of dividing by 0 sooo…
It’s the same result, positive or negative. So yes you are correct. So I can only assume that like 0, infinity borders both positive and negative.
Then again we can only assume so much when using infinity in maths. Do we assume that 10/0 and 2/0 are equivalent just because they are both infinity or that 10/0 is equivalent to (2/0)*5? Does ((10/0)*(2/0))*0 equal 0 or 20? Personally I believe the latter because it creates less contradictions that way.
cheers Skud for the vid, I immediately thouht of it too.
but bla and andwhyisit, you’re both wrong: 1. from m/infinity=0 you cannot derive -infinity=infinity, simply because infinity is not a number in the same sense as 1 or Pi or -325.6. In this context (as in most when physics is involved), infinity simply means “bigger than any given number”. Since dividing m by bigger numbers always gives smaller results (in absolute value), we write m/infinity=0 because 0 is smaller than any given number (in absolute value). 2. infinity is not the byproduct of dividing by zero, simply because division by zero is not a well-defined operation for real numbers (any number times 0 is 0, so division by zero would have to give you any -or every- number as a result). Thus, when you write (2/0)*5 you might as well write -123*5 and say it’s equal to 11 – just makes no sense.
Now you are right. Please continue to be right and cool.
The problem with infinity (and zero) is that they have undefined properties. Mathematics is a method of deriving a definable result from a set of inputs. That there are any contradictions at all means the input was not well defined enough to create a proper output. You cannot consistently represent that which has a poorly defined initial representation; especially when you perform operations on the attributes which are said to be undefined.
Here we are trying to fit complex yet rigid rules around a concept that is neither complex nor rigid. What happens is that we get a bunch of representative analogies akin to the musings of an old man with dementia. Is is any wonder that it’s so hard to comprehend the result of calculations that deal with zero and infinity?
You’re not quite right. Seems like you are not very good with calculus and mathemetical analysis.
First, infinity is not a number, and second — -infinity, +infinity, -i*infinity, +i*infinity are just different ways of approaching the same infinity from different sides of a complex plane. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_sphere , it will clear things a bit for ya.
Well, either wikipedia is wrong on this or I remember wrong what my past calculus teacher told us.
Frank is the unmovable object and Huy is the unstoppable force. You can see the outcome in the last panel :)
“immovable” and “Guy” of course. Damn you typos.
You know, that was the only sense I could make of it myself.
My mental images is that in the next few minutes, the bowl starts eating through the table, the floor, then heads to the molten core. ENCORE!
Panel 3 is pretty much the most emotion Guy has shown in about a year.
Well here’s the problem. You forgot to divide by zero.
Think that’s interesting? You should see my research on tying a cat to a toast with raspberry jam on on side to see which side it lands on
It really depends on the height you drop the cat from.
I’m thinking that the acid was ejected straight through the roof.
i’m pretty sure that the real experiment was to see how the prospect would affect Guy, and instead of being cautious (because clearly the only way such a thing can end is with explosions – as ALL science experiments should end) she leaned forward and about stuck her face in it.
Does Guy have a libido?
Of course she does, she just doesn’t share it with those she deems unworthy.
“Ok, we have a bowl full of singularity. What now?”
“Let’s see if we can get Wayne to eat it.”
Wayne won’t like it. He hates everything!
I did that this morning using orange juice and a glass. ;) The glass was made out of glass.
I like to imagine that the liquid kinda hovered a few millimeters from the container. That’s how much the universe abhors paradoxes. The mechanism keeping the acid slightly aloft is a physical manifestation of the hatred generated by all physicists and philosophers to ever exist.
I think the bowl is both dissolved, undissolved and any state between at the same time. It seems he created sort of like an observable “Schrödinger’s cat paradox”. But maybe you shouldn’t stare at it for too long. It might make you go blind.
I have to say: that’s an interesting picture of a vagina you have for an avatar. #cannotunsee
It’s the great, mighty Vagina. Worship it! :D
What happens when the unstoppable force meets the immovable object? Superman: “They surrender.”
All-Star Superman Issue 3
@Murg But if the universe can stop the liquid, then it is not unstoppable.
One curious thing about the irresistible force paradox is that it was first presented to me as “a force that can’t be stopped, reduced or have its trajectory changed by any obstacle” versus “an object that can’t be moved, destroyed or altered by any force”.
By trying to over-define the thing and forgetting to say the force could move any object, the dude gave me an opportunity for an easy answer: “The force goes through the object without suffering nor causing any effects”
For some time I was confused as to why it was considered a paradox…
There was a riddle: “What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?”; the answer to which was, “They surrender.” e.g.: nothing happens.
To join in click here
©2011-2018 Rickard S.J Jonasson | Powered by WordPress with ComicPress | Subscribe: RSS | Back to Top ↑