an oxymoron
Typically, the two particles that are attracted to each other are protons and electrons.
Two objects with opposite charges are attracted to each other. Two objects that are of like charge will repel each other.
Two forces do balance each other out, as long as the two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.
The force that draws two galaxies towards each other is gravity. The gravitational force between the two galaxies pulls them towards each other and can cause them to collide or interact.
an oxymoron
when two peple are aganst each other
The two testimonies in the court trial were in direct contradiction to each other.
Wanting two things that contradict each other; like attacking a country to pacify it.
It's not that WikiAnswers contradicts itself, it's that WikiAnswers' users contradict each other. WikiAnswers is made up of individual contributors (users), and since everyone has their point of view and their way of knowledge and doing things around here, they tend to contradict each other.It's just two different people's ways of doing things, and sometimes they just happen to contradict each other.
This question makes perfect sense. This question makes no sense at all.
No. An oxymoron are two words together that contradict each other.For example, silent scream."Misspelled" and "word" don't contradict each other, even if it was spelled "mispelled". It's merely ironic.
I think your question is garbled. Two people can repell each other, meaning that they have a mutual dislike, but they cannot repeal each other. Only laws can be repealed, and two laws cannot repeal each other. You could also be talking about magnets. Two north poles, or two south poles repell each other, meaning that they push each other away.
Search for additional evidence to see which argument it supports.
A rectangular triangle is an oxymoron! A triangle cannot be rectangular and no rectangular shape can be a triangle. The two words contradict each other.
No, that is a descriptive adjective. An oxymoron would be two things that contradict each other such as "clean dirt" or dumb Asians.
Two arguments about a historical event contradict each other. How should historians determine which argument is superior?