No, because what is being shown here is simply the electron cloud of each atom. Two atoms with overlapping electron clouds are bonded. In order to cause fusion their nuclei must combine.
Don't know about the car, but flintstone chewable dino vitamins are precisely what this post is referencing. Also, the fact that they were the tastiest medicinal supplement ever invented by man, even better than Coca-Cola. Fight me.
The throne has been abdicated ever since Comet Drop. They're just making video versions of the old ones. Someone's gotta give serious answers to absurd scientific questions!
Let's consider what it would take to have unbreakable (effectively infinite) surface tension:
Either existing intermolecular forces would need to be dialed to infinity, or a new intermolecular force must come into action. In either case, it would make it energetically favourable for gaseous water to immediately condense into liquid whenever a gaseous molecule interacted with another water molecule. It would be an ice-ix scenario. All water would fall out of the atmosphere within hours, everything which uses lungs would find them filling with fluid. No water could be poured or create any droplet smaller than itself or otherwise separate from other water. However, that's not even the weirdest bit.
If this new or altered intermolecular force functionally increased the attractive forces between molecules of water, and only water, to infinity, all water would immediately collapse such that the individual atoms would undergo fusion, breaking the bonds of the molecules in a conflagration of nuclear fire.
But let's assume that it reaches just before the point at which the atomic bonds break. The water will likely take on the properties of a glass, becoming effectively solid, everywhere, just like ice-ix.
So let's be more generous and assume that the intermolecular forces are increased to be only strong enough to make it effectively impossible to break surface tension. We'd see a significantly higher viscosity, but what else?
Well, the intermolecular forces will probably still SIGNIFICANTLY decrease the solubility of pretty much everything, everywhere, all at once (but especially covalent gases, which do not dissociate).
This means that, in every living thing, at the same time, bubbles of oxygen and nitrogen will be coming out in the blood/hemolymph/cell membranes, not only making respiration functionally impossible (or at the very least far less efficient), but also embolizing every living thing with the precipitated gases. Everything alive dies, immediately.
If those two gases aren't enough, it will probably also significantly change the dissociation constants of pretty much every ionic compound, making them far less likely to dissociate in water, effectively causing large portions of the salt in the sea and other dissolved solids to precipitate in a cloud of powdered solids that would make the banded iron formations of the great oxygenation event look like a child's sandbox.
Depending on the interrelation of water's own dissociation and the intermolecular forces, which I can't recall at the moment, all acids and bases may suddenly neutralise in a similar event.
No matter what, I don't think anyone would be worrying about swimmers not being able to break the surface of the water.
Did I suggest that they did? No, the problem is that every single line in that shit is trying to erase a portion of humanity that already exists. It's not just normalising hatred, it's making a normative statement that anything which acknowledges the mere existence of anyone unlike this bezoar of fetid smegma must be some attempt to brainwash all five neurons in that glob of rotting meat they have the temerity to call their 'brain'
The whole movement is gaslighting, but on a societal scale.
Are you suggesting that in order to not be "woke" or "political", it must only have cisgendered, white Christian people in it? That acknowledging the mere existence of people outside your manicured view of reality is anathema? Because that's the exact implication of the "review" you're defending. The hypocrisy is honestly pitiable. I am so glad that you stuffing your ears and screaming "lalala" whenever someone mentions the existence of people unlike you doesn't have any effect on the world around you. It's a shame we can't erase all of the other societal and geochemical effects of such blithering idiocy as yours and those of this "reviewer" as easily as your lot erase others. The paradox of tolerance is a solvable problem. The basic social contract says those who cannot tolerate others need not be tolerated.
Look, if YOU find a fluid that is incompressible in liquid form, liquid at room temperature, gaseous at temperatures lower than the melting points of most construction materials, has a low viscosity, can dissolve almost anything but is completely nontoxic, has a high heat capacity, is capable of ionic dissociation, is polar, and, oh yeah, also incredibly cheap, do let us know!
Umm, have they? I think all of the victims of their extrajudicial killings, crimes against humanity, piracy, and suborning genocide might differ in their opinions.
Here, full circle, special for you, all subtext removed. To whit:
Having a subculture of stereotypes, vague prophecies, and self-proclaimed oracles is bad. The degrees of bad vary, but such a subculture is net negative at all levels. This is not a "bad apples" deal, as your original comment implied. It is a systemic problem, and using meaningless bullshit to stereotype people makes you a worse person, at any level.
The US constitution disagrees with you. Specifically, the insurrection clause.