Burnt by water, ouch!
Lake Superior used Scald!
Critical hit! It’s super effective!
The irony of this statement—for any one who’s ever been in Lake Superior—is immense.
Savage lake
Driving east from Thunder Bay, once you hit Wawa, ON and head south you’re right on the shoreline for a bit, and it’s fucking amazing.
First time I drove that I just wanted to pull over and take some pics but there’s nowhere to stop.
“Lake Savage” hits harder in my opinion
Wwweeeeeeeellllllll see, water is also touching itself constantly. Something being wet is a material surrounded by water, like the fibers of a sponge surrounded by water, in example.
In water, every water molecule is surrounded by water molecules. This means every given water molecule can be considered wet. And thus water is wet.
If I have a single water molecule then it is still water but it isn’t touching any other water molecule, thus it isn’t wet
Exactly. So the only instance water is dry, and thus not wet, is if it’s a single lonely molecule.
But water tends to come in herds, so that basically never happens.
Is the polar-bonded surface layer of water wet? It is not entirely surrounded by water.
I’d say that’s dry, as it’s in contact with air. Or perhaps just moist, as it’s partially in contact with water.
Well no one would consider something with a single water molecule on it wet either.
Yup, that further confirms what I said
Something being wet is a material surrounded by water
So if I set my hand in water it’s not wet because it’s not immersed? What if it’s not water?
Can other liquids be wet? If I dump water into a bucket of gasoline, is my gasoline wet?
If I mix a soluble powder into water, like sugar, do I have wet sugar or sugared water? Do they have to be in contact? Is a phone in a bag in water wet because it’s surrounded by water, or dry because there’s air between it and the water?
What about those hydrophobic materials that can be dunked in water and come out dry? What about non-liquid phases of water? Is steam wet? If I dump water on ice is there a difference in how wet it is?The common colloquial definition of “wet” is “to be touched by a liquid”. The scientific is for a liquid to displace a gas to maintain contact with a surface via intramolecular forces. Water becomes a better wetter if we add soap because it no longer tries to bind to itself instead of what it’s wetting.
Neither of these has the water itself being wet, but you can have “wet ice”.
Let’s not pretend that a more scientific sounding colloquial definition is actually more scientific.
- Maybe. You are made mostly of water, so I don’t see why lot.
- Same logic applies to liquids that aren’t water.
- Gasoline being wet is an actual term, though.
- Yes, you have wet sugar. The sugar has just become reeeaaaally really small.
- The phone is dry. The bag it’s in is moist.
- If those materials are so scared of water, they shouldn’t be near water.
- Steam has air between it. It’s dry or moist. Ice is just water holding g hands.
you’re right about this
“to be touched by a liquid”
but its more of a simple definition however if you went more technical by biology and chemistry laws, wetness is about adhesion (liquid to solid surface contact) and water is cohesive (attracted to each other) but if you want to get reallyyyy into it you might tell me about mercurium, have you seen mercurium? because its freaking cool btw chemistry ftw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upRM7ykQloI the reason why mercurium wont wet things is because its cohesion is stronger than its adhesion, so any liquid that happens to be like this, this is why
no, if water was just hydrogens yes but no because then its no longer water but with the oxygen the water molecules are not exactly touching each other plus the definition of wetness is about the adhesion (liquid to solid surface contact) and water is cohesive (attracted to each other)
You fucking idiots. Real ones know wetness is how much vermouth it has in it.
Churchill apocryphally liked his martinis so dry that he would observe the bottle of vermouth while pouring the gin, and that was enough
I’d like a proper wet and dirty one right now, gawddamn
A single molecule of water is not wet but as soon as more then one molecule is present the water is then wet. That is my hill to die on in this argument.
A single drop has over 1.5 sextillion molecules (21 zeroes), so yeh even a single drop is wet, debates over cuz allow it.
I disagree. Mixing water and another liquid does not make the second liquid “wet” - it makes a mixture. Then if you apply that mixture to a solid the solid becomes wet until the liquid leaves through various processes and becomes dry. If that process is evaporation, the air does not become wet it becomes humid.
I mean. The molecule itself isn’t a solid or liquid, that has to do with the behavior of the molecules in dimensional space. Your argument is based on water as a substance, not as a molecule, completely avoiding the basis of their argument.
Besides that, most liquids you could easily mix with water are themselves water-based and therefore would be totally dried up into a powder or perhaps a jelly without their water content. To add water is to make them wet, and then they exist as a wet incorporated substance. As liquid substances. In fact, they could not dry up if they were not wet in the first place; to become dry is to transition away from the state of being wet.
You know what else dries up? Water.
Those things are mostly true yes but we’re talking about the function of the adjective wet in language and the phenomenon of wetness as a linguistical descriptor and livable experience. Obviously things are wet, it’s an incredibly common and useful term, but it probably does elude rigid classification and all you’re going to get are opinions because there’s no way to rigidly define it. It’s a “heap problem” there isn’t a specific point where something becomes a heap, but yet you can heap thing.
You sure bailed from your entire argument pretty darn quickly to now argue “there’s no way to rigidly define it.” There is. It’s “wet.” It behaves in the way wet things do. There’s no reason to say otherwise than to be contrarian. The only way to argue otherwise is to create a strict definition of wetness, as you just have, which ultimately fails when put up against reality and a more human use of language.
I’m confused, how does any of this help me determine whether that dude is a skilled lover or not?
sadly my wife isn’t on lemmy so we will never know
“Wet”, like “funny”, “beautiful”, “delicious”, “bright”, “hot”, “spicy”, "soft’, “hairy”, “clean”, “malleable” are subjective, context specific, descriptors. You can’t describe how many hairs makes something hairy: three hairs on a bowl of ice cream is hairy, but the opposite on a human head.
Water (and other liquids) make solid things wet.
If you put water and oil in a container and they separate, the interface between them is not wet.
Humid air can make things wet, but that only happens when the moisture in the air condenses onto a solid surface. Humid air will not make the surface of a lake wet even though water is condensing out of the air onto that surface.
is a cloud wet?
a cloud is (basically not exactly) “steam” - steam makes things wet when it condenses into water
(clouds of water on Earth at least, not Venusian clouds of Sulphur for eg)
The word you might be looking for is vapor.
Clouds are water vapor.
yes but I didn’t want to get dragged into whether vapor was wet.
It’s not solid, so no. It’s humid.
does that also classify as moist?
Yes, moist can mean humid.
If there is two molecules of water which one is the dry molecule and which one is the wet molecule?
If there are three molecules does one get divided in half to make the other two wet or does only one get wet and one stays dry until a fourth arrives?
If there are*
And they both get wet, since they’re both touching other water molecules. As goes for any other number above one. All of this is very obvious.
Thank you for this. I need more people to be on board with this explanation.
Wetting is an actual physical process that occurs between a liquid and a solid, or two unmixable liquids:
deleted by creator
I had no idea that a lake could be so saucy with the comebacks. Glad to hear that it lives up to its name.
well it is superior
unless theres more than one molecule of water, its touching itself
Oh please someone argue this with me!
I love semantic bs!
Water is touching water, so therefore water is wet!
Not that Thomas isn’t a piece of shit regardless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetting
Wetting is the ability of a liquid to displace gas to maintain contact with a solid surface, resulting from intermolecular interactions when the two are brought together.[1] These interactions occur in the presence of either a gaseous phase or another liquid phase not miscible with the wetting liquid.
Fair enough. I was not expecting something I could not understand
Basically, the process of making something wet requires a liquid (usually water) to actually stick to it, through intermolecular forces. That’s slightly more narrow a requirement than the “needs to touch water” that’s commonly thrown around. A lotus flower or water repellent jacket doesn’t get wet, even if you spray water on it, the droplets don’t actually stick to the surface.
Now, water molecules stick to each other as well, that’s called surface tension. But wetness, at least in physics, is defined at an interface between two mediums, a liquid and a solid, or two liquids that don’t mix
I learned something new today
Saying water is wet because it touches water sounds like “Fire is on fire because it touches fire”. It just sounds fundamentally illogical as you’re talking about a state of matter, not the matter itself.
I’m not a scientist, just throwing in my view on this
Well fire has a specific definition of something being oxidized, so does being wet.
Like are you wet if you were a molecule of water surrounded by water?
It seems, to me at least, any molecule that wasn’t water surrounded by it is wet.
Well fire has a specific definition of something being oxidized, so does being wet.
Which is still a definition for a state (or process/chemical reaction). Something that causes the state/reaction (like oxygen, salt and water on metal) cannot be a state in itself, therefore the logic tells me water in itself cannot be wet as it’s not reacting with something else
If you drive down far enough, I don’t think “wet” even remains to be a property something can have. As was mentioned, what is wetness to an individual molecule? It must be surrounded? Are all molecules “wet” with air, then?
“Wet” as a concept I think is really only useful to people communicating to each other what to expect. For instance, if I asked what was in the fridge, and you said “nothing”, it would be weird if I came to correct you: “duh, actually, there is a speck of dust in the corner. And not only that, it’s actually completely full! Of air.” This is because what you meant was, “to eat.”
A “wet” towel will feel damp and watery to a person picking it up in a way almost indistinguishable from water itself, and this is enough to say that both are wet. But, if I had spilled water, and you wanted to know how many things had gotten wet—well, these are a different set of expectations, and so maybe I wouldn’t count the water.
Are all molecules “wet” with air, then?
If we come up with a definition for this process, then yes, why not.
A “wet” towel will feel damp and watery to a person picking it up in a way almost indistinguishable from water itself, and this is enough to say that both are wet.
But you see, if I ask you for a wet towel, it will sound normal. If I’d ask you for wet water, I’d look mentally questionable
If I’d ask you for wet water, I’d look mentally questionable.
I think this is because water is always wet. It’s a bit redundant.
That is, unless,
We had a lot of ice. And, “wet water” was a very silly way of asking for the melted kind. I might think you bumped your head, but I would know what you meant.
“Is water wet” is not a complete question. I don’t know what the asker’s expectations are, so a satisfying answer is not really possible.
This is not too different from the ship of theseus being a difficult, brainteasing paradox until you clarify what exactly is meant by “is the ship of theseus.” “Which of these two boats is registered to me by the boat authority” is a much simpler question to answer.
Sorry I checked out the argument I started, but I like both your points, just yours a bit more. I think I’m common nomenclature damp is a level of wetness. Something may be “dry” to the senses but still contain a water content of double digits percentages, considering if our skin is less moist. That being said, I’m sorry I caused anyone any heartache. But I do love a semantics argument.
More reasonably, “wet” is often used as an adjective describing something that is liquid. Wet paint is, of course, wet.
Getting into a political argument with a lake account. The lake account using 1st person language as Lake Superior.
Our ancestors would marvel at our reality!
I don’t know, getting into arguments with sentient geo/hydrological features seems like the kind of thing our ancestors would have done
Water deities in ancient mythologies: Am I a joke to you?
The lake account using 1st person language as Lake Superior.
Are you suggesting that account isn’t Lake Superior’s account? Clearly lakes microblog.
Superior is more of a macro blog, no?
Definitely a macro bog at least
Lmao
I don’t know who that Tom Fitton guy is, but water absolutely wet. And he’s a knob.
Wetness is a quality/concept gained from a surface having liquid adhere to it. The liquid itself can’t be wet. It’s like saying fire is burnt.
Wetness is being saturated with water. Water is saturated by water by a base definition; you cannot be more saturated with something than literally being it, a 100% saturation value. Water is wet. And now so is the object in contact with it.
It’s less consistent to the example to say that fire is burnt and transferring that burnt, and more that fire is hot and a material affected by fire is also hot. Fire is hot. And now so is the object in contact with it. Being burnt is a secondary reaction as a result of the primary transference of the heat properties in an overabundance. Much like your skin shriveling is a result of being wet for prolonged periods. It’s a secondary reaction to the primary transferance of properties.
Water transfers its wetness, fire transfers its heat. Water is wet.
Unfortunately this is a flawed analogy.
What you’re equating water wets water is that heat heats heat, which could make semantic sense, but is a useless statement. The same argument, made for other properties, also becomes ridiculous: “light brightens light”, “scratching scratches the scratching”, “aging ages time”, etc.
Definitions are always imperfect, but some are imperfecter than others.
Also, see definition of henges; Stonehenge is not a henge, despite being the source of the word.
Heat and water are not analogous because heat is pure energy. Water is a physical liquid. You’re laser focused on a single definition of a word that’s used in many other ways. Anyone trying to tell you that water isn’t wet is engaged in semantic foolery.
You’re laser focused on a single definition of a word that’s used in many other ways.
You’re putting your finger on the entire argument there: words are used differently in different contexts, and thus mean different things. The whole discussion is banal.
Wetness is a quality/concept gained from a surface having liquid adhere to it.
A volume can’t be wet??? Man the random busted definitions you guys make up on the spot (instead of using a dictionary) just so you can win is really funny.
The liquid itself can’t be wet. It’s like saying fire is burnt.
Burnt is something that was on fire but no longer can sustain the flame.
It is more analogous to “dry” (something that used to have water but no longer).
Saying “water is wet” is like saying “the fire is burning” which we say all the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetting
That is the actual definition tho
That’s the wikipedia entry for wetting.
This is the definition of wet:
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/wet#English
Adjective
wet (comparative wetter, superlative wettest)
- Made up of liquid or moisture, usually (but not always) water.
Synonym: wetting
Water is wet.
Synonym: wetting
This might just be me, but I’ll take a physical definition with sources over a dictionary example sentence. But the meaning of words is fluid, like how “literally” now also means “figuratively”, so if you don’t, that’s okay. In scientific literature, where precise language matters, “wet”, “wetness”, “wettability” and “wetting” all refer to the process I’ve linked, however.
This might just be me, but I’ll take a physical definition with sources over a dictionary example sentence.
What you’re calling “a physical definition with sources” would be more accurately as an online encyclopedia entry.
Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia, written and maintained by a community of volunteers, known as Wikipedians, through open collaboration and the wiki software MediaWiki.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
Generally speaking, encyclopedia articles focus on factual information concerning the subject named in the article’s title; this is unlike dictionary entries, which focus on linguistic information about words, such as their etymology, meaning, pronunciation, use, and grammatical forms.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia
In other words, it’s just you.
But the meaning of words is fluid,
So then what are we arguing about? In common definition, as in the dictionary example from the source you i guess now regret linking, water is wet.
If you choose to define “wet” differently or in specific scientific contexts maybe water isn’t wet.
What you’re calling “a physical definition with sources” would be more accurately as an online encyclopedia entry.
Alright, sure. L. D. Landau, E. M. Lishitz: Course on Theoretical Physics 5: Statistical Physics, English translation 1951, p. 467ff, subchapter Wetting.
This is established science. I just thought Wikipedia might be an easier introduction.
Generally speaking, encyclopedia articles focus on factual information concerning the subject named in the article’s title; this is unlike dictionary entries, which focus on linguistic information about words, such as their etymology, meaning, pronunciation, use, and grammatical forms.
I don’t know what point you’re trying to make.
as in the dictionary example from the source you i guess now regret linking, water is wet.
What? I legit don’t understand what you’re trying to say. You linked a user-curated dictionary and pretended that’s the be-all, end-all of definitions. I can do that as well, even if PhilosophyTube is going to beat my ass for it:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/wet
But I was talking about the scientific background of the term. This is not some hyper-specific term, but how it’s used in almost* all of science.
*(The other somewhat common use is as a synonym of “humid”, often used in climate amd atmospheric science. Which is irrelevant in the discussion “is water wet”)
There’s an argument that a single molecule of water on its own would not be wet, but essentially all water is touched by other water, so even by the needlessly contrarian definition, water is wet.
There’s an argument that wetness is a sensation that occurs when water comes into contact with a solid surface. Therefore, while water can make other things wet, it is not considered wet on its own.
I’d argue there exist extremely viscous liquids which would be considered wet when in contact with water.
It seems arbitrary to exclude liquids from being wet.
And yet I’m struggling to think of one…
This is my personal argument tbh. Water transfers wetness but it can transfer it’s wetness to other water.
There’s an argument that a single molecule of water on its own would not be wet, but essentially all water is touched by other water, so even by the needlessly contrarian definition, water is wet.
Unless solid ice is “wet” you might need to reconsider the “touching molecules of water” angle.
When I said “water,” I meant it in the common, liquid sense, not the scientific designation for all dihydrogen monoxide regardless of state.
When I said “water,” I meant it in the common, liquid sense
The reason I was being pedantic is because you specifically said a single water molecule.
Water molecules don’t have a state in and of themselves. State is determined by the distance between molecules, whether they form macro crystal structures (ice).
Liquid/solid/gas is a macro state that many many water molecules might be in.
A single water molecule is a micro state, “solid” or “liquid” is meaningless in a context where we look at a single molecule and the things it immediately bonds with.
We aren’t in the realm of liquid or solid, we’re in the realm of covalent and hydrogen bonds.
Only when thousands of molecules get together can we start talking about “liquid” water.
deleted by creator
You don’t get to just say that it’s not up for debate lmao every definition is up for debate
Water is wet, and the only definitions that explicitly exclude the possibility that it is are based entirely on the idea that water isn’t wet, rather than the actual ways people use the word “wet”
water isnt wet bro it just makes everything it touches wet but i SWEAR its not wet bro pls just believe me i have to be right its not wet
This but unironically
This is physically correct
If everything water touches is wet, and water touches itself, then water is wet.
wetting is the process of a liquid adhering to a surface. water by definition can’t be wet
Liquids don’t have surfaces?
The property of cohesion means that water is touching and adhering to the surface of other water molecules.
It doesn’t change Tom Fitton being a shit, but facts do matter.
Except for the fact that water by definition is wet
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wet
Fun fact: there is no such thing as a universally accepted definition. Words mean what we mean when we say them. And the vast majority of people use “wet” to describe something that is made up of, touching, or covered in a liquid, especially water. The arbitrary assertion that the definition somehow only applies to solids is just facile contrarianism with no actual basis in linguistics.
yeah but you know what the vast majority of people are like
Solid (frozen) water, commonly referred to as “ice,” can have a surface.
is ice wet?
It can be, but the ice itself is not wet.
By your bizarre definition, yes.
Please offer a better definition that doesn’t cover other, worse, edge cases. Bonus points if it’s useful.
“That which water touches is wet” means air, deserts, and even space can be wet. That seems less than meaningful.
EtA: Also, just wait until you learn about henges
“Wet” Is used as an adjective describing something that consists of or is touching some liquid. Nobody seems to have a problem with the concept of wet paint. I can’t imagine anyone other than Sheldon Cooper saying “technically the wall is wet, the paint is liquid!” If you would say that, I have a locker to shove you in
Does that mean that lava is wet? How about glass? Or a mercury thermometer? Or space, touching liquid/plasmatic hydrogen (or liquified gasses)?
I wouldn’t call any of those wet in my daily life.
Another note (which you mentioning air made me think of), if water “has no surface” then how does it have “surface tension?” Another point for “water touches water.”
Water touching water surely mixes, no?
Mixing elements would entail the elements dissolving or at least distributing within the mix, making boundaries between them unclear. The mix can however have a clear edge.
Does milk wet cocoa, or do they mix? The hot chocolate of course has a surface, but if you add rum to it does it really adhere to it?
It’s not “less than meaningful” if you understand wet as a relative term. There can be a normal level of wetness where if it is exceeded we then call that thing wet, and if it’s under that threshold we call it dry relative to the norm.
If you somehow came from a perfectly dry environment, yeah, you would probably consider our world pretty wet. You would have a pretty hard time describing your experience to others if you couldn’t use the word wet to do so. The word doesn’t lose meaning just because you go all reductio ad adsurdum with it.
And thus space, deserts, and air is wet. Which is pretty useless asa definition.
That’s the actual definition. That’s why bad solder joints are called dry joints and melting the solder across a soldering iron tip is called wetting the tip.
But that’s not the definition of wet. Wet is something having liquid adhere to it, usually water. It’s a gained quality. Water doesn’t adhere to itself, it can’t gain the quality of being wet because it is the thing that gives that quality. It’s like saying that fire is burnt. It does the burning.
Water literally adheres to itself. That’s one of its most important qualities.
deleted by creator
Since heat is thermal energy, it can transfer this thermal energy but it loses some due to the second law of thermodynamics. Water doesn’t lose the ability to adhere to other things when it transfers, so the two phenomenon are not really equateable.
deleted by creator
Fair enough, heat can’t lose heat. However when it interacts with a substance some of the energy is “lost” in that it transfers to the substance. Unless it is a completely inert material.
Can you hold a unit of heat? Or do you hold a substance that is imbued with heat energy? Seems like a good reason to say the two are not equateable, which was the main point.
Other than that, a specific fields definition of wet does not make the term exclusive to that field. In aquatic science, wet still means something that water is adhering to. Water adheres to itself so water is wet.
Heat is indeed hot.
deleted by creator
wet
1 of 3
adjective
ˈwet
wetter; wettest
Synonyms of wet
1
a
: consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (such as water)Water definitely consists of water my man
Maybe by your definition, but have you considered that the definitions that I like are the objectively correct ones?
/s shouldn’t be necessary but this is the internet
Honestly, without the /s I would have assumed idiocy over sarcasm. I hate that I would usually be right in doing so.
Water is cohesive which means yes, it does attach to itself. It’s one of the main reasons capillary action works and your blood flows the way it does.
obviously not a lot of blood flow going on in this thread
Actually fire is the byproduct of a chemical reaction. The material being combusted is the one doing the burning. Fire (rather, extreme heat) can cause combustion in other materials, given an oxygen rich environment, but the fire is not itself doing the combustion or burning.
Wetness is not a chemical reaction, so it’s kind of an apples to oranges comparison.
You can’t wet a lake
Because it’s already wet
Water isn’t you lmao gottem
Yes but water touches itself. Abortion ain’t murder though.
Police. Yeah I’d like to report a murder.
Good luck finding the body, that lake never gives up her dead
When the skies of November turn gloomy
yes, what water touches is wet. you’ll never guess what water is always touching
Your mom?
Nah, it touches everything, water has issues with boundaries and consent.
