voyager hasn't landed anywhere yet


and i agree with the gravity is a constant force not unstoppable force
if you insist that it is then i would suggest the earth as the immovable object because relatively it can't move and even is completely stopped traveling through space altogether it wouldn't change the interaction between the object affected by gravity and the earths surface

and if perceived as such a situation the result is clear the immovable object wins


but as this a clear situation paradox trying to answer it logically is impossible

there are reasons they are called paradoxes

That logic COMPLETELY fails. You can't see a black hole because light cannot escape it. We measure them by observer their effect on their environments


incorrect, no such assumption is needed.


Perhaps not today, but there may be developments to this effect in the future. However, since this is according to modern, not future laws of physics, it would be illogical to argue by this. Instead, we should, as I have, try and argue this from a logical standpoint, through contradiction.


Hubble telescope cannot see a black hole. It can only see the effects of it. I'm still lol'ing at omega's gigantic fail.


erm...the earth revolves around the sun...something caused by gravity...?

you cannot start off with the assumption that you are dealing with a paradox. For example, if constant force is an unstoppable force (which it isn't, just trying to make a point here), then it wouldn't be a paradox. If you go by the accepted standards/definitions of unstoppable force, then it is a paradox. What you're doing is a bit like assuming an answer in a proof and then going on to prove the answer in a roundabout way using your assumption. It doesn't work.

Finally, you learn to rephrase my previous post. Well done. That's the correct logic.

and as i stated even if were to completely stop the effect of gravity wouldn't be affected

so i believe my argument is still valid

Sigh...as I have said many times before, this is a paradox because both things cannot simultaneously exist. I just didn't understand what you wrote down here.

First off, bork, we both know that a constant force isn't an unstoppable force, so I'm arguing this just for fun, since this has nothing to do with the topic. Now, I would appreciate a rephrasing of your point since I really have a tough time understanding it. From what im seeing now though, your argument is incorrect in that you are comparing earth to the earths gravity. That would be fine. But in saying gravity as a whole instead of earths gravity, the earth itself is moved by gravity, as per the sun scenario, your immovable object is being moved by the unstoppable force, so the unstoppable force would 'win'.

But anyhow, that has nothing to do with the topic lol.

If a simplistic forum game confuses you, yes I'd expect that to also.