This damn quote is driving me crazy

[Xitemo]

Lucky~9~Lives

Xitemo

Iggy The Balrog

The existence of either invalidates the exist of... the other one.

The situation is voided by definition.

I know I know, I'm not here to argue if it could happen, becasuse it couldn't.

Irrelevant. Another tack:

"What would happen if the four-sided triangle were red?"

See how meaningless that is? Because we define triangles as having three-sides, not four - and an immovable object, by definition, voids the possibility of there being an unstoppable force, and vice-versa. Having them in the same sentence (scenario) is thus meaningless - not only could it not happen, it makes no sense.

I like how you ignored the rest of the qoute :/ If they are both drawing their energy from a seperate infinite energy source but are simply using it differently then this could technically happen.

[Loshi Deneb]

Xitemo

Lucky~9~Lives

Xitemo

Iggy The Balrog

The existence of either invalidates the exist of... the other one.

The situation is voided by definition.

I know I know, I'm not here to argue if it could happen, becasuse it couldn't.

Irrelevant. Another tack:

"What would happen if the four-sided triangle were red?"

See how meaningless that is? Because we define triangles as having three-sides, not four - and an immovable object, by definition, voids the possibility of there being an unstoppable force, and vice-versa. Having them in the same sentence (scenario) is thus meaningless - not only could it not happen, it makes no sense.

I like how you ignored the rest of the qoute :/ If they are both drawing their energy from a seperate infinite energy source but are simply using it differently then this could technically happen.

Yeah, Lucky isn't a very good debater. He ignored my post where I explained how the hypothetical situation WOULD work and instead focused on my post where I responded to him. Way to be an intelligent debater!

Also, it's established that neither of these things could possibly happen, as there's no matter in the universe which has been discovered (yet) that has either immovable or unstoppable qualities. The former would require extradimensional properties to be soundly rooted in one X,Y location while the molecular properties of the latter are, well... Required to have an infinite amount of energy. Which isn't discovered yet.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

Xitemo

Lucky~9~Lives

Xitemo

Iggy The Balrog

The existence of either invalidates the exist of... the other one.

The situation is voided by definition.

I know I know, I'm not here to argue if it could happen, becasuse it couldn't.

Irrelevant. Another tack:

"What would happen if the four-sided triangle were red?"

See how meaningless that is? Because we define triangles as having three-sides, not four - and an immovable object, by definition, voids the possibility of there being an unstoppable force, and vice-versa. Having them in the same sentence (scenario) is thus meaningless - not only could it not happen, it makes no sense.

I like how you ignored the rest of the qoute :/ If they are both drawing their energy from a seperate infinite energy source but are simply using it differently then this could technically happen.

No it couldn't - again, they can't both exist, by definition. It's like saying you could be taller than yourself.

[I got bored one day]

Xitemo

"This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object."

What would happen?

I harness free perpetual energy. This really is what happens.

[Loshi Deneb]

Lucky~9~Lives

Xitemo

Lucky~9~Lives

Xitemo

Iggy The Balrog

The existence of either invalidates the exist of... the other one.

The situation is voided by definition.

I know I know, I'm not here to argue if it could happen, becasuse it couldn't.

Irrelevant. Another tack:

"What would happen if the four-sided triangle were red?"

See how meaningless that is? Because we define triangles as having three-sides, not four - and an immovable object, by definition, voids the possibility of there being an unstoppable force, and vice-versa. Having them in the same sentence (scenario) is thus meaningless - not only could it not happen, it makes no sense.

I like how you ignored the rest of the qoute :/ If they are both drawing their energy from a seperate infinite energy source but are simply using it differently then this could technically happen.

No it couldn't - again, they can't both exist, by definition. It's like saying you could be taller than yourself.

I can be. I'm technically always older than myself, if by myself you mean a past version of myself. For example, I'm older than I was before typing this.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

Loshi Deneb

Lucky~9~Lives

Xitemo

Lucky~9~Lives

Xitemo

Iggy The Balrog

The existence of either invalidates the exist of... the other one.

The situation is voided by definition.

I know I know, I'm not here to argue if it could happen, becasuse it couldn't.

Irrelevant. Another tack:

"What would happen if the four-sided triangle were red?"

See how meaningless that is? Because we define triangles as having three-sides, not four - and an immovable object, by definition, voids the possibility of there being an unstoppable force, and vice-versa. Having them in the same sentence (scenario) is thus meaningless - not only could it not happen, it makes no sense.

I like how you ignored the rest of the qoute :/ If they are both drawing their energy from a seperate infinite energy source but are simply using it differently then this could technically happen.

No it couldn't - again, they can't both exist, by definition. It's like saying you could be taller than yourself.

I can be. I'm technically always older than myself, if by myself you mean a past version of myself. For example, I'm older than I was before typing this.

A past-version of yourself is just that - a past version of yourself i.e. not yourself. Yourself is always you, and you're always exactly as tall as you are.

[I got bored one day]

Loshi Deneb

I can be. I'm technically always older than myself, if by myself you mean a past version of myself. For example, I'm older than I was before typing this.

No. "You" are an instantaneous happenstance. The only time when you are you ( when X is X ) is in the moment you consider yourself ( X ), so essentially if you are comparing yourself to the past ( X to X1 [ no subscript... ] ) you are actually not the same object considering in order for equivalency to be present you have to have all variables the same, time included.

[Loshi Deneb]

Lucky~9~Lives

You're always yourself, and you're always exactly as tall as you are.

You're not specifying the definition of "me". Which me are you talking about? The Me you see in a Photo, the Me that is represented by my Gaia Avatar, the Me that I sculpted from clay?

Srsly, you're debating the OP's question for "not being possible" and yet you're not clarifying your own assessments.

Death and Misery

Loshi Deneb

I can be. I'm technically always older than myself, if by myself you mean a past version of myself. For example, I'm older than I was before typing this.

No. "You" are an instantaneous happenstance. The only time when you are you ( when X is X ) is in the moment you consider yourself ( X ), so essentially if you are comparing yourself to the past ( X to X1 [ no subscript... ] ) you are actually not the same object considering in order for equivalency to be present you have to have all variables the same, time included.

When Lucky posed the question he did not specify which "myself" I was comparing myself to.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

Loshi Deneb

Lucky~9~Lives

You're always yourself, and you're always exactly as tall as you are.

You're not specifying the definition of "me". Which me are you talking about? The Me you see in a Photo, the Me that is represented by my Gaia Avatar, the Me that I sculpted from clay?

Read the edit i.e. stop being retarded and mistaking your avatar for yourself.

[Xitemo]

Loshi Deneb

Lucky~9~Lives

Xitemo

Lucky~9~Lives

Xitemo

Iggy The Balrog

The existence of either invalidates the exist of... the other one.

The situation is voided by definition.

I know I know, I'm not here to argue if it could happen, becasuse it couldn't.

Irrelevant. Another tack:

"What would happen if the four-sided triangle were red?"

See how meaningless that is? Because we define triangles as having three-sides, not four - and an immovable object, by definition, voids the possibility of there being an unstoppable force, and vice-versa. Having them in the same sentence (scenario) is thus meaningless - not only could it not happen, it makes no sense.

I like how you ignored the rest of the qoute :/ If they are both drawing their energy from a seperate infinite energy source but are simply using it differently then this could technically happen.

No it couldn't - again, they can't both exist, by definition. It's like saying you could be taller than yourself.

I can be. I'm technically always older than myself, if by myself you mean a past version of myself. For example, I'm older than I was before typing this.

This.

I've been satisfied by the deflection or phase through possiblities. The problem with this question is trying to comtemplate things we have little chance of actually comprehending (a.k.a. infinity) We can't actually picture infinity, but we can talk abotu it ad consider it as a concept. This was dealing with -concepts-

[I got bored one day]

Loshi Deneb

Death and Misery

Loshi Deneb

I can be. I'm technically always older than myself, if by myself you mean a past version of myself. For example, I'm older than I was before typing this.

No. "You" are an instantaneous happenstance. The only time when you are you ( when X is X ) is in the moment you consider yourself ( X ), so essentially if you are comparing yourself to the past ( X to X1 [ no subscript... ] ) you are actually not the same object considering in order for equivalency to be present you have to have all variables the same, time included.

When Lucky posed the question he did not specify which "myself" I was comparing myself to.

I pose it doesn't matter on the grounds that there's no other possible point of comparison in regards to the "self" you decided to pick.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

Xitemo

I've been satisfied by the deflection or phase through possiblities. The problem with this question is trying to comtemplate things we have little chance of actually comprehending (a.k.a. infinity) We can't actually picture infinity, but we can talk abotu it ad consider it as a concept. This was dealing with -concepts-

And like I said, infinity is a different class of concept than 'universe with unstoppable force and immovable object'. The latter is in the 'four-sided triangle' camp i.e. 'purple monkey dishwasher face'.

[MarlboroMurder]

Michael Noire

it's the same thing that happens when you divide by zero.

This Is For The CO3O3 My People
We Got The Music That You Can't Stand Still To

That Sentence: Still An Instant Headache. I Had To Write An Essay On The Properties Of Zero.
The Unstoppable Force Bounces Off. It Can't Be Stopped, But That Doesn't Mean It's Directory Can't Be Changed By An Unmovable Object.

And Even If You Don't Dance, Don't Dance
I Gotta Get You Out And Take This Chance

Enie Menie Minie Mo
So Much Bitches At Our Shows
Different State A Different Ho
Which Of Them Should I Take Home?

Questing A Sign. A Special Sign.
I'll Be Super Picky.
But If you Pull It Off, You Get 20-25k. If You Try You'll Get 1-2k Depending On How Close It Was
To what I'm Lookin For. K?

[Loshi Deneb]

It's entirely possible that your definition of "me" and my definition of "me" are two different things, while we both stay true to the actual meaning of the word.

Regardless, you're not debating semantics and getting off the topic off the actual QUESTION, you're, just like I said before, debating the QUESTION, not actually answering it. Cop-out.

[Gorbek II]

The immovable object is not necasarily indestructable, so the unmovable object get's chattered or destroyed.