Ice and Fire

and its weakness, a sponge that can dry the wettest places.

you sir are just creating a whole-nother mess of things!

the sponge and the water combined is even more genius than the fire and ice arrows!

"At first light shoot between these sticks."

I expected something about someones mother, well, well.

comment 19 for that

Oh, didn't see that!

I really should learn how to torrent so I could finally watch this show
if it's only half as epic as the books, then firefly will go down to number two on my list

Do it, they capture a good deal of the books... very, very well. It's actually worth buying it on blu-ray or DVD in my opinion.

a crown for king

Is that hot, molten metal being poured on that poor fucker's head? Fuckin brutal...

He had it comming..

It's the crown he wanted all along. Gold and fit for a king :D Almost through the first book, look to get ahead in the second one before the 3rd series starts :D

this may be borderline spoiler but I'm gonna tell you anyways, if you love the character, something horrible is going to happen to them

Excuse me sir, when will we get Majora's Mask for the 3DS?

in the same day of HF3

Im going to fly around the earth a couple times. See you soon!

flying bear killed two canadians.

MFW they announced the remake of Wind Waker

MFW it'll be on WiiU and i'll not have it

...WAT.

I NEED A WII U NOW

Me and my friends pretty much got a heart-attack throughout that entire Nintendo Direct.
So much awesome!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u3djy6Ednc

long video, but im watching this right now, and then saw your comment

As a die hard Zelda fan, I will kindly ask you to please, go die in a fire

I actually liked skyward sword's graphics...

Maybe if you have vision problems, then yes, they look exactly the same

and thus... the Gunblade

I'll tell you what happens!

Its only theoretical. but if it were to happen, i guess the unstoppable force would just go through it without actually moving the immovable object. in such a force, the atoms would just pass by.

I saw a really cool minutephysics video about it, but basically this:

An "immovable object" technically cannot exist because the theory of relativity says that there is no preferred frame of reference in the universe. Therefore, if I simply moved relative to the object, the object would be moving relative to me as well. So it's not that the object doesn't move, but it can't be moved by pushing on it. It's unacceleratable meaning it's speed is constant. Hypothetically if this were true, the object would have an infinite mass.

Interestingly enough, an unstoppable force is really just the same thing as an immovable object. An unstoppable force implies that the force or object cannot have it's speed altered, and is therefore also referred to as unacceleratable.

This whole scenario is obviously hypothetical because an object with an infinite mass would be a black hole which has already consumed the universe. Anyhow, the outcome of two unnacceleratable objects colliding is that they would both pass through each other without disturbing each other.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eKc5kgPVrA I was pretty much paraphrasing this video, perhaps he could explain it better than I could.

the immovable object would break

If the immovable object gives way then clearly it's moved, making it not an immovable object.

You idiot! don't solve it!

You lose on a technicality.

In a reality in which an immovable object exists, there can obviously be no unstoppable objects, an vice versa.

That question, the paradox, is rendered moot by the existing oxymoron in the question.

This paradox was originally brought up by soem chinese guy. A merchant sold an unstoppable spear and an unbreakable (immovable somehow) shield.
The more you know.jpeg

They surrender

Something's gotta give

Love that song.

If one exists the other doesn't

Minutephysics handled this question, actually.

Never heard of it. Will check it out.

Heard of that. The whole "unstoppable force and immovable object" thingy is based on that.
Merchants' FW he got asked the contradiction.

They could be made, but they can't be created at the same time.

As such one could have a shield that blocks everything, but during that time the halber can' and the opposite is true if you have the halber the shield can't be here during that phase of time.

The fact is one cannot exist in a world with another, one would have to give, therefore either the sword would pierce or the shield would block.

The original question was what happens when an unstoppable bullet meets an unbreakable wall.

You think R + L = J? I think so, it makes so much sense.

It really does, but there is so much more that could happen it's pretty hard to tell.

Honestly, I don't think anyone can really say what GRRM is gonna do, he throws a lot of twists in. Who knows what'll happen? I hope that that's actually what happens, though.

Plot twist: Jon Snow is actually Rhaegar.

It's magic, bitch. Fuck your science.

I actually didn't think they burned. Both me and the gf loved them.

sureee "girl friend"

I'm telling your dad.....hahahaha

I agree with you.

hey waiter, how bout some sauce?

You'd like the source of this?

If anything, call me waitress.

why yes, i would very much like the source for this, dear waitress.

It's from Touhou.

Only the ice fairy though. The others are fan elements versions of her.

Yeah, I do. What's wrong?

I'd love to hear what fire and ice are if not elements.

compound

adj. (kmpound, km-pound, km-)
1. Consisting of two or more substances, ingredients, elements, or parts.
2. Botany Composed of more than one part.
n. (kmpound)
1. A combination of two or more elements or parts. See Synonyms at mixture.

Fire and ice are elements..

"That show"

What are you on about now?..

i dont even know please end me from this torture of confussion

I don't know how.

i begeth of you

fire n'or water are elements and Empedocles was wrong
water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen H2O
fire is different but is still not an element it consists of heat, fuel, and oxygen

"Fire n'or water are elements".

"Fire is different, but is still not an element."

Now you're just being stupid. Do you not know the definition of elements either?..

a substance that can not be broken into different substances

5. One of four substances, earth, air, fire, or water, formerly regarded as a fundamental constituent of the universe.

no Empedocles said that but was later proven wrong by a chemist whos name escapes my mind
also Phlogiston is a fire like element but not fire

"Former".

Meaning it has been altered. I'm pretty sure what that guy proved wrong would be the theory of the world consisting of only the four elements. Where as fire sought towards space and all that other crap.

They are by definition still elements.

"classical elements"
there now we're both happy

They are still elements though..

oh and
7. elements The forces that constitute the weather, especially severe or inclement weather: outside paint that had been damaged by the elements.