The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

There is no such thing as an 'Immovable Object'

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/13/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 769 times Debate No: 100865
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




My argument is that there is currently no such thing as an 'Immovable Object'. I argue that is physically impossible to be an immovable object. We are technically traveling through space at an "x" miles/per hour, thus concluding that every object known in existence always moves. Two objects with the exact same force may collide together, but the gravity in the galaxy will still keep the objects moving through the universe.

I only know of one way there could be an immovable object. My opponent is required to either prove my understanding of the universe to be incorrect or prove how there can be an 'Immovable Object' that does not travel through space as we speak.

Round 1 is acceptance and Opponents argument. Round 2 is critique and biased conclusions(e.g. philosophical or theological point of view).


Einstein's Theory of Relativity argues that everything is in motion in relation to the observer so it depends whether or not you are determining whether or not that object is moving around in space or space is moving around it or the observers perception of the stationary (or larger/'inert') object and it's colliding object could be skewed. Say there is a black hole with enough mass to create a singularity large enough to tear space time, if that were the case; that object would be locked in its position and everything else would just be moving around it in space time while that object would be locked in place.
Debate Round No. 1


Actually, there is one assumption to that hypothesis and that is objects themselves cannot exist without the "observer". My questions are these, "Does the universe continue if there was no living conscious able to observe it?" If it does not, then why do things happen that is outside of our(Man's) observation? What if we see a tree that is fallen in the forest? Can we not conclude that it has fallen from a point of standing up? Is there any tree that has "not fallen" look like it "has literally fallen"? Would it cause the same vibrations in the air from it falling as if someone was around to sense them, specifically with hearing?

The theory states for all observers. If no one can ever observe an immovable object, then wouldn't stand to reason that an immovable object cannot exist?

Are we moving through Time or not(relativity not important)? The theory is if Space is moving and we are stationary, it would imply that everything would have to be stationary and space moves around us. But the theory requires Spacetime to be as one not separate. If space is moving around us, then is Time moving around as well? Space moving around us is possible to conceive, but having Time moving around us might seem impossible to perceive. We, in fact, can perceive moving through Time, an analogy would be a river. But to say that time moves around us like space can seem......hyperbolic.

If Time moves everything around us, then how is anything immovable? Does not matter require both Space and Time to come together as one object? Can you prove one thing that Time(with or without Space) does not move? Does not objects, including black holes, always attract other matter? How is that attraction possible without Time? How can Spacetime function without Time? Relativity does not negate all of Time's impact on an object.

I stand by my assertion that there is no immovable object.


For your fist paragraph you misunderstood my meaning about the 'observer' as in not a being that watches but as the thing that you take a frame of reference from. If two meteorites are hurling toward the moon at the same speed they'd appear as if they were floating still next to each other, only slightly moving closer to each other because of their gravitational pull its only by adding the moon into the equation that any observer would know that they were actually moving very fast at another object. Relativity, and I, didn't say that the universe couldn't exist without the observer I meant that every judgement we make about motion is relative and from our limited frames of reference. The argument about the tree is completely irrelevant in this context because I'm not arguing that just because we don't see it doesn't mean it can't exist, I'm arguing that motion and speed are relative and the only 'objective' (if that could exist in this sense) frame of reference would be space time.

In your second paragraph, this sentiment "The theory is if Space is moving and we are stationary, it would imply that everything would have to be stationary and space moves around us. But the theory requires Space time to be as one not separate. If space is moving around us, then is Time moving around as well?" I'd argue is a straw-man. I did not say that human's could be the stationary object that bends space-time, I said something with enough mass to do that, which is a black-hole. The singularity in a black hole has enough mass and gravity to bend space time in onto itself. It essentially locks itself there in space time until it decays and dies.

You said in your words that saying time moves us around like space seems hyperbolic, well at the point of singularity our rules of physics...break. Black holes don't move, they warp space time to a one dimensional point at which it no longer moves but pulls things toward it by pulling down on space time. It's stuck in place, the singularity of black holes, as Steven hawking said, stop time where they are. Also things being pulled into the event horizon of black holes don't effect the singularity and don't pull on it.

I assert that motionless objects are those like singularities and wormholes that break space time in such a way in one spot that they are motionless in the frame of reference to the rest of the universe.
Debate Round No. 2
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by TheTheoreticalPhilosopher 3 years ago
Thank you very much, I agree with the most part about a black hole, except for one distinct difference. I don't think Time and Space decays and dies within it, I think it changes its nature to bring matter somewhere else......Like a wormhole. But I appreciate the knowledge and revelation, thank you very much.
Posted by SteveHeist 3 years ago
Is this in regards to the idea of "Unstoppable force hitting an immovable object"? Because, hypothetically, it IS possible to place an object in such a fashion that no force can move it - but that space necessary is not currently accessible by humans to commit appropriate tests.
Posted by SkySky16 3 years ago
Well duh, that is only used on a purely hypothetical and/or theoretical basis lol
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments about observers are irrelevant to the immovability of an object. As Con noted, an object that breaks the rules of spacetime -- which black holes are believed to do -- are essentially immobile.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.