Instigator / Pro

There Are No Immovable Objects or Unstoppable Forces in Newtonian Physics


The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Con

All in the title.
I only have one rule. Only accept my debates if you actually believe the opposite position.

Round 1
First, we must define "unstoppable" and "immovable." Hopefully, everyone knows what "force" and "object" mean.

unstoppable: impossible to stop

immovable: impossible to move

Newtonian physics: of or relating to the principles taught by Isaac Newton, including his 3 laws of motion; the forces that act on normal matter. (Leave quantum and antimatter out of this.)

Pretty simple, but we'll make it clear so that no one can twist the meaning.


First of all, I would like to establish that movement and position are relative. As Einstein stated, a box on earth with the force of gravity pulling objects "down" at 9.81 m/s^2 is indistinguishable from a box accelerating through space at 9.81m/s^2 to a person inside the box. This has to do with the law of inertia.

Now, in a similar situation, a person sitting in a train will appear motionless to someone else on the train but will appear to be moving at the speed of the train from the relative perspective of someone who is not on the train. Furthermore, someone with a really good telescope in space would observe the person moving at the combined velocities of the train, the rotation of the earth, and the orbit of the earth. Someone from outside the galaxy, if they could somehow see that person, would see that person moving at all of the above velocities combined along with the rotation of the galaxy and the movement of the galaxy away from the Big Bang.

All of these perspectives on that person's movement is relative, but it is undoubtable that that person was moving in relation to other objects. 

Now, let us suppose that there was a stationary object immune to the influences of gravity, magnetism, or any other force. (This is impossible. Everything is influenced by some force or another. Even non-objects like light are affected by gravity. So I could stop here and call it a day, but let us suppose.) 
Such an object is not immovable. It is made of atoms, which require the movement of electrons and such. This alone proves that the object can move, and thus, is not immovable. I could also stop here, completely correct. 

Now, let us suppose that this object is somehow not made of atoms, despite the additional impossibility.
I remind you that motion and position are relative. If this object doesn't move, then from a moving object I will perceive it as moving in relation to me. From an objective viewpoint, my movement and its being stationary is indistinguishable from it moving and my being stationary. 
"Now, K_Michael," RM might say, "but the position of the object is the same, so it hasn't moved."
That is untrue. Position and movement or lack thereof can only be seen in relation to other objects. Therefore, the only way to objectively perceive an object as unmoving is if everything else is unmoving. Since we know that other objects are moving, it is impossible for an object to be unmoving. There is no such thing as an immovable object.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. 
This is a fundamental part of Newtonian physics. In other words, if there is an unstoppable force, there is an equally unstoppable force created simultaneously. This opposite force can, by merit of being an equal force, STOP the "unstoppable" force.
 I bet you thought the second one would be equally long.
Round 2
I extend all arguments.
If nothing around is able to stop the force and nothing around is able to move the object, it doesn't matter that there theoretically 'can be' eventually a stopping of the force or moving of the object. 

'are' doesn't mean 'will be'. Are is present tense.
Round 3
'are' doesn't mean 'will be'. Are is present tense.
Invalid. Physics have not changed over time, so if my argument applies at any point in time, it applies always.

If nothing around is able to stop the force and nothing around is able to move the object, it doesn't matter that there theoretically 'can be' eventually a stopping of the force or moving of the object. 
Under this supposition, anything can be "unstoppable" or "immovable." You literally just stated the Law of Inertia.

Even if there is "nothing around" able to move or stop an object or force, that doesn't make it unstoppable or immovable. A block of cement is immovable if only ants are nearby. But that doesn't make that cement block immovable.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction we get it. Kind of like if i run at you, really you and the whole room are running at me in reverse. That doesn't mean i'm stoppable, or that you're movable. Klick Klack bang, I win.