river said: ↑
Wrong , the chemical definition of contiguous is actual touching .
Wrong. Not possible.
To you . But not chemistry .
river said: ↑
Wrong , the chemical definition of contiguous is actual touching .
Wrong. Not possible.
When you have been suspended for failing to support a claim and you come back and instantly repeat the same unsupported assertion, I call that trolling. I can’t see what else it can be.I was going to query "trolling" but you have suitably qualified it as "mad" .![]()
When you have been suspended for failing to support a claim and you come back and instantly repeat the same unsupported assertion, I call that trolling. I can’t see what else it can be.
No, I was just trying to be funny (mind you I have never really quite understood the meaning of trolling)When you have been suspended for failing to support a claim and you come back and instantly repeat the same unsupported assertion, I call that trolling. I can’t see what else it can be.
You know nothing about chemistry. I tied to explain to you that atoms and molecules can not physically touch because they have no surface. They have no absolute size, only a probable size. They can not touch. they can only merge.To you . But not chemistry .
↑
Number of meaningless .
What I looked for was the meaning of contiguous by chemistry , specifically .
Wrong , the chemical definition of contiguous is actual touching .
Did you not understand?Claims should be supported with appropriate evidence or else retracted, as noted in the previously issued warning.