is water more than the sum of its parts ?

[thinking]

To further demonstrate my point, that some or many lay definitions specify air or oxygen as being required for combustion.

Observe the fire triangle:

No doubt you could argue that you said fire, not combustion, however in the minds of lay people they're the same thing.

but for me , thinking , I said burn , not fire , but burn

regardless

when we look into the subject deeper we come up with a liquid

 

[Trippy]

but for me , thinking , I said burn , not fire , but burn

Congratulations on missing the point.

when we look into the subject deeper we come up with a liquid

There is no omphaloskepsis required. Water is precisely the sum of it's parts, no more, no less.

 

[thinking]

Originally Posted by thinking
when we look into the subject deeper we come up with a liquid

Congratulations on missing the point.

There is no omphaloskepsis required. Water is precisely the sum of it's parts, no more, no less.

I see

I think

explain

 

[thinking]

There is no omphaloskepsis required. Water is precisely the sum of it's parts, no more, no less.

so you are telling me that particles are a liquid , hmm.. I mean particles , as in atomic particles , as in H and O2 , which are particles , are then broken down to a liquid state but at the sametime are stable in their particle form , but are able to have a liquid form and to have a distinction still present as to distinguish between H and O2 atomicly

and ALL this going on at the same time !!!! ?

hardly

 

[Trippy]

so you are telling me that particles are a liquid , hmm.. I mean particles , as in atomic particles , as in H and O2 , which are particles , are then broken down to a liquid state but at the sametime are stable in their particle form , but are able to have a liquid form and to have a distinction still present as to distinguish between H and O2 atomicly

and ALL this going on at the same time !!!! ?

hardly

Half of this post is gibberish, to be perfectly honest, and makes zero sense.

What you're saying bears absolutely no resemblance to what I'm telling you.

"Liquid" has no meaning when you're discussing single particles, it's a property of an ensemble of particles.

What I have said however, is that all of the properties of water can be accurately intuited by considering the properties of Oxygen and Hydrogen, and considering the differences between them.