Pain is a message produced by a network of nerves to tell you that something that's not right is happening. One of the body's limits is being passed in some way and the hurting is the warning light.Jasper Jeffs said:Why does pain hurt?
I either get a strange look or "because it does". I still dunno why it hurts, or what pain even is. I feel pain, but I have no idea why it hurts me, or what "hurt" is. Ah fuck, I'm just diving by zero here.
Our brains have simply come to interpret the activation of those nerves as the hurting sensation - just as the brain has come to interpret the activation of the nerves in our ears as sound.
During the formation of our planet oxygen and nitrogen atoms were trapped in various compounds throughout the earth's crus. The first life-forms that evolved did not require oxygen, thoguh they did require the carbon and phosphorous that the oxygen and nitrogen were bonded to. Thus they metabolised the compounds and produced oxygen nad nitrogen as a waste product.HarmanSmith said:OT: Why is there air?
Or, if you're a Creationist, God placed it here for us to breathe so our internal metabolisms would have the secondary fuel source it requires.
Wrong again. A force is not made up of energy; the energy is resultant that acts upon the object due to the force.Talshere said:Wrong, if the force is unstoppable then it cannot lose any of its energy when passing through the wall or it is in fact stoppable just very hard to stop.Zeeky_Santos said:Force Transference.AvsJoe said:What would happen if an unstoppable force met an indestructible wall?
One thing first: Unstoppable force is the same thing as an infinite force.
Let's assume that the original poster means "immovable object", not "indestructible object". The answer to the second is as Zeeky said; force transferrance. The indestructible object would be subject to the unstoppable force and would undergo infinite acceleration. The original object would rebound with exactly negative infinite acceleration, itself being an unstoppable force as well.
Or both objects would be annihilated.
Now, the first one (immovable object). An immovable object by definition must be of infinite mass; this means that the energy required to move the object is infinite - hence, immovable.
Hold on, here's where it gets interesting. The object going at an infinite acceleration will be of infinite mass itself (laws of relativity, the object will be travelling at the speed of light due to the infinite acceleration) and, as such, will in fact be subject to infinite kinetic energy. When this encounters the immovable object... the immovable object will be moved.
The trouble with this question is that the unstoppable force and the immovable object are essentially two sides of the same coin. The theoretical immovable object is an object of infinite mass that cannot be moved by any real force and can only be moved by an infinite force - which is the aforementioned unstoppable force.