The gales of November came way early this year.
Damn, for a lake bragging about making things wet that was some sick burn.
This issue people have with some fixed phrases is bizarre to me.
Might as well say “Actually, this ‘morning’ isn’t ‘good’ at all!” and pretend you have a point. Really devalues anything following it by revealing the person saying it to be an obnoxious pedant.
But standing up for women’s rights this way get’s more retweets, which is the ultimate measure of success after all, so what do I know?
Responding like this means you don‘t understand the phrase „good morning“. It means „I wish you a good morning“.
I get a lot of compliments on my use of the English language and I absolutely cannot stand prescriptivists (among other pedants).
I agree, it was an extremely weak comeback. Definition of grasping for straws.
Simply superior
Nevermind what his view on abortion is. Why does he have to start something on a post about womens rights unless he thinks they should not have rights?
I’d still argue water molecules touching eachother make themselves wet, but that guy is an ass so fuck him.
actually water molecules are cohesive (attracted to each other, yes in that sense you are right) but wetness is associated with adhesion which basically means the possibility of a liquid to adhere to a solid surface so no, water molecule themselves alone are not enough to fit into the definition of wetness i hope i wasnt too technical but i tried to be as dummy as possible
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.
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.
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
More reasonably, “wet” is often used as an adjective describing something that is liquid. Wet paint is, of course, wet.
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
Just wait till lakes home pull up…
That is outstanding.
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
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
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.
Wetting is an actual physical process that occurs between a liquid and a solid, or two unmixable liquids:
deleted by creator
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.
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?
It’s not solid, so no. It’s humid.
does that also classify as moist?
Yes, moist can mean humid.
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.
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.
Your argument is based on water as a substance, not as a molecule
Water cant be just a molecule, as the relationship between molecules of a substance at different temperatures is what makes something a solid, liquid, gas, or plasma. Water is the liquid state of H2O, and thus one molecule of that would just be a single H2O
You know what else dries up? Water.
That’s just the H2O changing phase to gaseous, it doesn’t stop existing. I’d personally classify humidity as “wet”, as would most people I’ve met, so it’s still wet after “drying”
I’d say wet and dry are relative terms here but ultimately, yes, you and I are in agreement that water is wet.
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.
“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.
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
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.
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
It’s such a weird thing to say that it’s dry.
Why can’t it be neither? Being wet or dry is a property of solids, or maybe gasses (where you’d say “humid” rather than “wet”). It doesn’t make sense as a qualifier of water itself.
It can be neither, I said it’s weird when people say it’s dry.
I never got it either. I think they’re just contrarians. They just want to feel like they discovered something novel that all the people before them got wrong so they can indulge in pedantic arguments about it.
That is, when it’s not engagement baiting like the tweet above.
Possibly. Some do, I’m sure.
I see a lot of people try to answer brainteaser questions like this as if they can be driven down to some scientific ultimatum, but science can’t answer questions of philosophy. “Wet” is something we made up. A towel doesn’t care if it’s “damp” or not. How could it?
See my other comment if you want a link to a fun Vsauce video.
This is physically correct
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
