They surrender

I saw a really cool minutephysics video about it, but basically this:

An "immovable object" technically cannot exist because the theory of relativity says that there is no preferred frame of reference in the universe. Therefore, if I simply moved relative to the object, the object would be moving relative to me as well. So it's not that the object doesn't move, but it can't be moved by pushing on it. It's unacceleratable meaning it's speed is constant. Hypothetically if this were true, the object would have an infinite mass.

Interestingly enough, an unstoppable force is really just the same thing as an immovable object. An unstoppable force implies that the force or object cannot have it's speed altered, and is therefore also referred to as unacceleratable.

This whole scenario is obviously hypothetical because an object with an infinite mass would be a black hole which has already consumed the universe. Anyhow, the outcome of two unnacceleratable objects colliding is that they would both pass through each other without disturbing each other.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eKc5kgPVrA I was pretty much paraphrasing this video, perhaps he could explain it better than I could.

the immovable object would break

If the immovable object gives way then clearly it's moved, making it not an immovable object.

You idiot! don't solve it!

Something's gotta give

Love that song.

If one exists the other doesn't

Never heard of it. Will check it out.

Its only theoretical. but if it were to happen, i guess the unstoppable force would just go through it without actually moving the immovable object. in such a force, the atoms would just pass by.

I'll tell you what happens!

You lose on a technicality.

In a reality in which an immovable object exists, there can obviously be no unstoppable objects, an vice versa.

That question, the paradox, is rendered moot by the existing oxymoron in the question.