The debate on whether we Touch anything solid .

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by river, Jul 4, 2021.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    The ordinary being in actual contact . The bold definition .

    The Link is abit busy .
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,380
    Even if that was the case, chemistry isn't metaphysics. I.e., its nomenclature is not an unassailable authority for finally settling such esoteric issues, anymore than common usage dictionary definitions are (nor has ontology proper ever resolved that territory).

    If you encounter text making declarations about _X_ in an absolute or independent of brain-representations and practical modeling context, then it has just detoured off into scientific realism, scientism, etc (philosophical orientations rather than the job skills of a lab profession).
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2021
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. river

    Messages:
    17,307

    Metaphysics , irrelavant .

    Chemistry is based on physical things and their properties .
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,380
    Uh... knock, knock. Via your unmitigated claim of "contiguous, discribes what is really going on between molecules and atoms" that's the degree of ontological certainty (dogma) that you're projecting upon chemistry.

    Sigh... never mind. This is as futile a communication attempt as ever.
     
  8. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    • Please do not troll. If you cannot support a claim, you ought to retract it and apologise to your readers.
    Look up the chemical meaning of contiguous .
     
  9. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,227
    There isn't one.
     
  10. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    [QUOTE="Dywyddyr, post: 3680399, member: 52889" ]There isn't one. [/QUOTE]

    There are many . Look up the chemical meaning of contiguous .
     
  11. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,931
    I have googled "chemical meaning of contiguous". There is none.

    Again, atoms can not "touch" because they have no surface.
     
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,345
    Moderator note: river has been warned for trolling.

    Claims should be supported with appropriate evidence or else retracted, as noted in the previously issued warning.

    Due to accumulated warning points, river will be away from the forum for 1 week.
     
  13. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    • Controversial claims should be supported by appropriate evidence, especially after you have been asked for it many times.
    Anyway look up the chemical meaning of contiguous . I'm sure many have by now .
     
  14. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,227
    There isn't one.
    Stop lying.
     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,345
    Moderator note: river has been warned for trolling.

    Claims should be supported with appropriate evidence or else retracted, as noted in the previously issued warning.

    Due to accumulated warning points, river will be away from the forum for another week or so.


    ----

    Meh. Strange to repeat exactly the same behaviour, expecting a different outcome to last time. Slow learner?
     
  16. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,370
    Of course there is no special meaning of contiguous in chemistry.

    "Contiguous double bonds", in the obscure reference river dug up, merely means double bonds that are next to one another in the carbon chain of an organic molecule, i.e. without a single bond in between, so allenes rather than conjugated systems for example (which have alternating single and double bonds). So contiguous just applies to the conventional way of drawing these molecules.

    In fact, these bonds most definitely do NOT touch, as, in a ...C=C=C... allene unit, the 2 π-bonds are perpendicular to one another, e.g if the left hand one has its orbital in the plane of the text, the right hand one will be above and below that plane. Conjugated systems, by contrast tend to align their π-orbitals in the same plane, as this allows the π-electrons to delocalise across all 4 atoms: C=C-C=C also has contributions from C⁺-C=C-C⁻ and C⁻-C=C-C, lowering the overall energy - and leading to some characteristic chemical reactions.

    River's a mad troll - but we knew that.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2021
  17. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    But there is a chemical understanding of contiguous . Physical , Actual touching . Look up contiguous . So you disagree with them . Why are they wrong ?.

    And wouldn't they be aware of what your saying ? I would think so . And have gotten long past this by now . Hence why chemically contiguous means " actual touching " .
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2021
  18. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,661
    They aren't wrong, river. "Contiguous" has a number of meanings. You have opted to take one of the meanings ("physical, actual touching") and assume that that is the meaning used in chemistry. That is your error.
    Contiguous can mean touching, yes, but it can also means just "next to" https://www.dictionary.com/browse/contiguous, e.g. in a sequence.

    The link you provided is all about "contiguous double bonds". So let's take another link about chemistry that also talks about things being "contiguous": https://goldbook.iupac.org/terms/view/C01437
    You will note here that it says: "Those present in a chain in which at least three contiguous carbon atoms are joined by double bonds;..." This refers to a chain of Carbon atoms, joined by double bonds... i.e. ... C = C = C ... i.e. the precise example that CC offered previously.
    Note that the Carbon atoms themselves don't touch... they are simply joined together by double bonds, the same way that a balloon might be "joined" to a person's hand by the string between them. So here we have carbon atoms that are contiguous, but they don't actually touch each other. They are simply "next to" each other in the sequence, or row of atoms in question.

    This is the meaning that chemistry uses when using the word "contiguous" as applied to atoms, or double bonds in cyclic compounds etc. They use it in the meaning of "next to". This is not a special meaning to chemistry, just the application of the general definition in context.

    If you continue to assert that there is a chemical understanding of contiguous, and that it is "Physical, Actual touching", then you will continue to be wrong.
    You've been suspended from this site for continuing this claim of yours in an unsupported manner. Are you looking to be banned permanently?? Support your assertion, or accept that you are wrong in this matter.
     
    exchemist and foghorn like this.
  19. river

    Messages:
    17,307


    Number of meaningless .

    What I looked for was the meaning of contiguous by chemistry , specifically .

    Wrong , the chemical definition of contiguous is actual touching .
     
  20. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,370
    And the mad trolling continues.........
     
  21. geordief Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,845
    I was going to query "trolling" but you have suitably qualified it as "mad" .

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Nothing mad about it .

    My post#56 .
     
  23. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,931
    Wrong. Not possible.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page