Instigator
Points: 14

There Are No Immovable Objects or Unstoppable Forces in Newtonian Physics

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
K_Michael
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Science
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Points: 6
Description
All in the title.
I only have one rule. Only accept my debates if you actually believe the opposite position.
Round 1
Published:
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.


Immovable

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.

Unstoppable 
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.
Forfeited
Round 2
Published:
I extend all arguments.
Published:
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
Published:
'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.
Published:
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.
Added:
--> @TheRealNihilist
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: omar2345 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: The instigator did not forfeit.
The only one to substantiate their point was the instigator while the contender was staking making claims with no explanation. This is why the instigator made the more convincing argument. I can't fill in the gaps of the contender's argument. It is up to the contender to explain his side which the instigator was perfectly capable of doing.
>Reason for Mod Action: I get the temptation to, in a round of this length, not survey the main arguments specifically, but that urge does not negate the voter's responsibility to do so. The voter does engage in weighing to the extent the seem to find one side's arguments better warranted and thus of greater weight. The voter can re-cast a sufficient vote by simply stating what the main (counter)arguments were in the debate, inasmuch as Con did make some arguments. This is an easy fix.
************************************************************************
#9
Added:
--> @Pinkfreud08
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point to Pro for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Con ff a round, this is poor conduct
>Reason for Mod Action: Per the site's voting policy: "a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points." Since the voter only awarded conduct points (and not also arguments) and since only 1 out of 4 rounds was forfeited, the voter is not entitled to award conduct points solely on the basis of the forfeit.
************************************************************************
#8
Added:
--> @K_Michael
My point, precisely.
#7
Added:
--> @oromagi
I wouldn't say that gravity is an unstoppable force, depending on your definition of stopped.
Instigator
#6
Added:
--> @oromagi
Thanks for the feedback.
Instigator
#5
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
Please go through with a debate that you've started.
Instigator
#4
Added:
--> @K_Michael
I agree with this. It can only be hypothetically true and even hypothetically it has flaws. If the force is truly unstoppable, then when something collides with it, it shouldn't lose any force at all because it's unstoppable, but physics suggest that it will lose some force, therefore, with enough objects, you could eventually stop it.
Now you could say it's only unstoppable until it collides with something, but that seems like a cheap technicality.
#3
Added:
The universe is an ever-expanding (ergo, moving) object, according to science. Science also speculates that gravity will eventually result in the "Big Crunch," necessarily stopping and then reversing the force of the universe's expansion. Hardly unstoppable or immovable.
Instigator
#2
Added:
id speculate the universe its self is both an immovable object (in its entirety) and an unstoppable force.
#1
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Conduct to pro for the forfeit.
Pro setup a non classical relativistic approach to movement, indicating that objects can be moved relative to an observer of the observer is moved. I would like to have seen relativity cited more specifically, but this is just preference.
The unstoppable force point is a little laboured with his reference to reactive force, but it’s enoufh for the initial burden.
Con offers little in response, amounting to a semantic trick. If there isn’t a counter to stop the force, or force to move the object: they are technically unstoppable or unloveable. Even if this is true it doesn’t render them unstoppable. Can’t be stopped is not the same as wont be stopped.
In cons final round - it’s not even clear what the justification is - and due to it being cinal round can’t be challenged.
As a result, pros opening is unrefuted. Arguments to pro.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pro does a good job here by defining terms up front. I would have liked to have seen Newtonian Physics defined as well. I buy that no objects are immovable in an ever-moving universe better than I do the argument against unstoppable forces. Equal reaction does not imply an equally unstoppable force is generated. Gravity is an unstoppable force.
Con might have called tautology and made a convincing case. Con might simply named one unstoppable force or immovable object. Certainly, Pro's summary of Newton's Third Law is vulnerable to critique. But Con forfeits in the first round and offers the flimsiest of efforts in the second: even if everything is movable or stoppable eventually not everything is moving or unstopped now. Of course, everything is unmovably immobilized when stripped of time but in Newtonian Physics, time is a constant.
Arguments to Pro
Conduct to Pro for Con's double forfeit.