# Immoveable V Unstoppable **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 24, 2008, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immoveable-v-unstoppable/474238 "2008-11-24T13:02:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immoveable-v-unstoppable/474238/121 "2008-11-26T00:49:59Z")
> [@DiggitCamara](#): > > But… but… in this case, the question itself (immovable object v. unstoppable object) is even more nonsensical, isn’t it? “Never the twain shall meet”. > > 1. In **begbert** ’s scenario (regardless of other rules) the two supposed objects are able to meet each other. Thus, one of them will be proven wrong (or, in other words, one of the will actually live up to its name, the other one won’t) > 2. In your scenario the two objects can never meet. And thus the question has no meaning. To be a bit more precise, in my mental dictionary the very definitions of “unstoppable” and “unmoveable” contain an implicit assumption that all “what if” scenarios are under consideration as well, as indicated by the used of the word “could”. That is, it’s not a question of what will happen, but instead, what _could_ happen, if the world was instead arranged so as to allow the question to be properly tested. So, my response to the statement “the two objects can never collide” is “yeah, but what if they _did_?” At which point we weed out the local maxima and find out who is the one true victor. ---
**Author:** ![pancakes3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ba9def/32.png) [@pancakes3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pancakes3)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immoveable-v-unstoppable/474238/122 "2008-11-26T01:23:33Z")
Agreed. Pleonast’s scenario has no bearing on the original problem because the two never meet. I think he was trying to retort to the strongman - hefty woman scenario where the question was raised if the two can simultaneously exist. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immoveable-v-unstoppable/474238/123 "2008-11-26T03:38:49Z")
Pleonast, your argument is never going to work. It’s based on the premise that something that doesn’t happen therefore can’t happen - which doesn’t stand up. An immoveable object is an absolute. It says that no force _anywhere_ can move it. If there’s a force, even billions of light years away, that could move the object then it’s not immoveable. An object that hasn’t been moved is not the same as an immoveable object. An object that is difficult to move is not the same as an immoveable object. An unstoppable force is the same kind of absolute. If there is an object anywhere that could stop it, then it’s not really unstoppable. The issue of whether or not the object ever does stop it is immaterial. ---
**Author:** ![DiggitCamara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/df788c/32.png) [@DiggitCamara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiggitCamara)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immoveable-v-unstoppable/474238/124 "2008-11-26T06:50:35Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > To be a bit more precise, in my mental dictionary the very definitions of “unstoppable” and “unmoveable” contain an implicit assumption that all “what if” scenarios are under consideration as well, as indicated by the used of the word “could”. That is, it’s not a question of what will happen, but instead, what _could_ happen, if the world was instead arranged so as to allow the question to be properly tested. > > So, my response to the statement “the two objects can never collide” is “yeah, but what if they _did_?” At which point we weed out the local maxima and find out who is the one true victor. Yeah, you pretty much nailed what I wanted to express about your scenario. **Pleonast** ’s scenario, however, seems out of place for the original question. If the immovable object and the unstoppable one can never meet, because you define the conditions that way… well… you render the question moot, don’t you? (Which, ironically, is kind of the point of the question in the first place). **Pleonast** ’s universe could, by the way, have dozens of “immovable objects” and just as many “unstoppable forces” floating around. ---
**Author:** ![chowder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@chowder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chowder)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immoveable-v-unstoppable/474238/125 "2008-11-26T08:16:59Z")
No Matter ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immoveable-v-unstoppable/474238/126 "2008-11-26T21:21:51Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Yes, I meant to agree with your reasoning that the definitions of unstoppable or immovable are rendered meaningless by imposing a non-interacting condition; did I misunderstand your post? I think we’re agreeing and only appearing not to. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immoveable-v-unstoppable/474238/127 "2008-11-26T21:23:42Z")
> [@DiggitCamara](#): > > **Pleonast** ’s universe could, by the way, have dozens of “immovable objects” and just as many “unstoppable forces” floating around. Worse, they could in fact be _quite feeble objects._ ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2008, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immoveable-v-unstoppable/474238/128 "2008-11-26T23:09:10Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Pleonast, your argument is never going to work. It’s based on the premise that something that doesn’t happen therefore can’t happen - which doesn’t stand up. > > An immoveable object is an absolute. It says that no force _anywhere_ can move it. If there’s a force, even billions of light years away, that could move the object then it’s not immoveable. An object that hasn’t been moved is not the same as an immoveable object. An object that is difficult to move is not the same as an immoveable object. > > An unstoppable force is the same kind of absolute. If there is an object anywhere that could stop it, then it’s not really unstoppable. The issue of whether or not the object ever does stop it is immaterial. This, this, this, a thousand times this, what he said, QFT, etc.. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/immoveable-v-unstoppable/474238.md?page=6)