Yeah, that was not a smart thing to say, but you get the idea. Reaction at molecular level.
Fire can’t be “on fire”, it’s fire itself, just like water can’t be moisturing water or making it wet, fundamentally that’s illogical. Matter vs state of matter.
For others wondering why I deleted my comments: Tried to have a discussion, that ended with some people downvoting all of my profile. Nearly all of my comments on lemmy now are in negatives. Never really expected such toxicity and pittiness from lemmy users, but here we are.
I don’t know, maybe but also maybe wetness is the perceived presence of water molecules which makes water itself wet.
Fire is not on fire itself if fire molecules touch other fire molecules. Being on fire or being wet is a state.
fire molecules?
Yeah, that was not a smart thing to say, but you get the idea. Reaction at molecular level.
Fire can’t be “on fire”, it’s fire itself, just like water can’t be moisturing water or making it wet, fundamentally that’s illogical. Matter vs state of matter.
Fire is not a state it is the process of combustion.
I was referring to “on fire” as that process
Fire is the process.
For others wondering why I deleted my comments: Tried to have a discussion, that ended with some people downvoting all of my profile. Nearly all of my comments on lemmy now are in negatives. Never really expected such toxicity and pittiness from lemmy users, but here we are.