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!
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, getting into arguments with sentient geo/hydrological features seems like the kind of thing our ancestors would have done
Man this has the comments at each other’s throats.
Water is wet though.
Nope. Baba is wet though.
it’s moist at most
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
Solid (frozen) water, commonly referred to as “ice,” can have a surface.
is ice 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.
And thus space, deserts, and air is wet. Which is pretty useless asa definition.
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.
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.
It can be, but the ice itself is not wet.
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
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.
Then literally everything is wet, because the air contains water molecules! But we don’t say everything is wet, just like water molecules touching water molecules don’t make each other wet.
I mean I’d say that counts as wet.
So literally everything on the surface of the planet, in every building, in every room, is wet? That makes it a completely useless definition and is obviously not what anyone means when they’re talking about something being “wet”.
If air with 0% humidity can be called dry, then air with humidity can be called wet.
Language isn’t perfect and it’s often contextual. If someone wants to describe a property of water based on a newer usage in physics, maybe choose a newer word.
If air with 0% humidity can be called dry, then air with humidity can be called wet.
Yet we don’t do this, we call it humid.
It’s not useless 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.
What is humidity other than the measurement of how saturated the air is with water vapor (or how wet the air is)
The water in the air is not liquid water. Unless it’s raining, in which case it’s very much liquid water, and you’re very wet if you’re standing in it
Yes, the water in the air is not liquid water, just like individual water molecules are not liquid water. You got it!
An individual water molecule is not liquid, but if it’s touching other water molecules that are in a liquid state, then it is wet.
Water molecules can’t be in a liquid state, it’s only the aggregate that’s liquid. Therefore water molecules can’t be wet.
You can’t wet a lake
Because it’s already wet
Water isn’t you lmao gottem
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.
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.
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 literally adheres to itself. That’s one of its most important qualities.
Does heat heat itself?
Heat is indeed hot.
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.
You are conflating semantics with physics.
In physics, the definition of wet is widely “that which water adheres to” and excludes water, as other definitions typically lack utility. End of discussion, at least until you define a context where some other definition is more useful and also coherent with the discourse.
Also, heat does not lose thermal energy - energy cannot be destroyed, the 2nd law applies only to states - not energy, and pedantically: heat is the transfer of thermal energy, so heat is still heat regardless of amount of thermal energy.
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.
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
That is outstanding.
Just wait till lakes home pull up…
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.
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
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
The gales of November came way early this year.
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?
You fucking idiots. Real ones know wetness is how much vermouth it has in it.
I’d like a proper wet and dirty one right now, gawddamn
Churchill apocryphally liked his martinis so dry that he would observe the bottle of vermouth while pouring the gin, and that was enough
unless theres more than one molecule of water, its touching itself
If that’s true then holy water is a lie
You can only have one molecule of holy water in a container at a time
“It’s when water is touching a surface” blah blah I can easily disprove it by doing this or that. There is a surface of water in a bucket, does that become wet when I pour more water? Then you have to say “solid surfaces,” but furthermore am I “wet” if I enter a body of water fully submerged? No, I’m “under water” and saying I’m wet would be weird. Is the bottom of a bucket “wet” or does it contain water? How much water can something have on it for it to be “wet” or “submerged”? For most of history language has been arbitrary and man-made. All of these cases are caught by our arbitrary rules when we encounter them. By arguing water is wet or not without mentioning anthropic usage would make you wrong on the grounds of your argument.
Saying you’re wet while underwater is the most natural thing, what?
I find it patently absurd to say water isn’t wet. Like obvious doublespeak levels of absurd. It’s the wettest thing possible.
The only thing wetter than water would be your mom I suppose.
If I put a tungsten cube under water I wouldn’t really call it wet. But if I sprayed it with water I would. But that changes when it’s a person, no? The type of surface it is depends as well, not all surfaces are equal - like something that is water phobic (aerogel) can make something not wet even though it (person + aerogel) is in contact with water. I’m not arguing water isn’t wet. I absolutely think it is by our language. But I am saying there isn’t a good way of arriving at that conclusion by going full Webster Dictionary.
I would call anything under water wet with the specific exception of stuff like aerogel that is hydrophobic, because it’s insulated by a layer of air. I think at enough pressure that would be overcome and the material would become wet.
By that logic is fire not hot because what fire touches becomes hot?
No because these are not comparable things. fire is the chemical reaction changing energy into heat, it IS heat to the extreme.
Sooo water is wet to the extreme?
Water is water. Something covered in water can be described as “wet”.
And, no, water can’t be covered in water. It is just more water.
But if I put flowing lava on more flowing lava it no longer has the property of being hot it just becomes more lava?
It’s water all the way down
water can’t be covered in water.
This seems very… arbitrary.
What if you used food coloring? You could have some red water, and if poured carefully, and before it diffused, you could “cover” it in blue water. Certainly, there’d be no way to get to the red water without first touching the blue bits, which feels a lot like being covered by them.
Food coloring isn’t water. I’m talking pure H2O, baby
I like sticking my hand into dry water
