Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Reward Points: | 2 |
Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 92% |
Arguments: | 2 |
Debates: | 0 |
Just because you mix both gasses doesn't mean water spontaneously forms.
when a water molecule has both of it's hydrogens bonded with other water molecules then that molecule is saturated on a minute scale. also it would have no free valence electrons in this case, and that by definition means it's a saturated molecule.
So technically one water molecule isn't wet, but 3 or more would be "wet". but thats irrelevant because one liter of water has 3.34 x 10^25 molecules of water, but go figure.
A single water molecule, besides being microscopic, wouldn't be wet. For something to be saturated, it is "imbued thoroughly; or charged thoroughly or completely". Which means Mickey the water molecule isn't wet by himself. Also, in chemistry saturation means having no free valence electrons. So, if Mickey bonded with at least two other water molecules he would be imbued thoroughly and have no free valence electrons.
For the record, a single water molecule itself isn't wet but water is irrefutably wet.
this argument is debate is irrelevant but it really made me think for once.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know! |