Is Water Wet?

[Mags she/they]

1 minute ago, Mr. Misting said:

Water is wet.

If water was alone by itself, it would still be wet, just as carpet would be fuzzy even if you weren't touching it.

Also, the general argument I've seen is that water makes things wet, but isn't it always in contact with itself? So isn't it constantly making itself wet?

yess thank you

like fire is hot guys, water is wet

[kpShadowFox He/Him]

Just now, Mr. Misting said:

Water is wet.

If water was alone by itself, it would still be wet, just as carpet would be fuzzy even if you weren't touching it.

Also, the general argument I've seen is that water makes things wet, but isn't it always in contact with itself? So isn't it constantly making itself wet?

my unenlightened fellows, you see not the truth of the world.

Water is not wet.

By itself that is. 

[Mags she/they]

1 minute ago, kpShadowFox said:

my unenlightened fellows, you see not the truth of the world.

Water is not wet.

By itself that is. 

what

but like misty said, if contact is what makes something wet, then water is wet because it's always in contact with itself

[Mr. Misting he/him]

4 minutes ago, kpShadowFox said:

my unenlightened fellows, you see not the truth of the world.

Water is not wet.

By itself that is. 

I'm down to play nonsense games, but I'm curious, do you have other arguments as to why water isn't wet?

To me, it all comes down to how useful a definition it is. Sure, all color is actually wrong, and it absorbs all light except the color you see, but it isn't useful to define color as such. Sure, you could argue water isn't right, and change the definition, because all definitions are inherently made up, but it would be a less useful definition. 

Edited October 23, 2024 by Mr. Misting

[kpShadowFox He/Him]

 

1 minute ago, J. Magi said:

what

but like misty said, if contact is what makes something wet, then water is wet because it's always in contact with itself

OBJECTION!

what if there was only one water molecule?

[Mr. Misting he/him]

1 minute ago, kpShadowFox said:

OBJECTION!

what if there was only one water molecule?

At that point I feel like it isn't water, how dice is always multiple. One molecule of water, should be called a wat or something, it's pretty different from a glass of water.

And do you have an answer to the question I asked?

[Mags she/they]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Misting said:

I'm down to play nonsense games, but I'm curious, do you have other arguments as to why water isn't wet?

To me, it all comes down to how useful a definition it is. Sure, all color is actually wrong, and it absorbs all light except the color you see, but it isn't useful to define color as such. Sure, you could argue water isn't right, and change the definition, because all definitions are inherently made up, but it would be a less useful definition. 

^^^^^^^

2 minutes ago, kpShadowFox said:

 

OBJECTION!

what if there was only one water molecule?

that's an unrealistic situation, if we're being honest. But, I think it's still wet because the Hydrogen and oxygen are in contact with each other and in a liquid form. So, wet.

[Immortal Platypus]

I come to answer the ultimate question. I am a Platypus, a semi-aquatic mammal. I am the ultimate arbiter. and no. a single molecule of water is not wet. However, it could become wet. if one molecule of water joined another, then both would be wet. So is wetness a property of water? no. But is the capability of wetness a property of water? yes.

 

I am Platypus and I have spoken.

10 minutes ago, Mr. Misting said:

At that point I feel like it isn't water, how dice is always multiple. One molecule of water, should be called a wat or something, it's pretty different from a glass of water.

And do you have an answer to the question I asked?

the singular of dice is die.

also, technically, in reality, water will almost always be wet. however, by the definition of wet I've always thought of (to be covered in water), then a single molecule (unrealistic as it is, it is possible) would be dry until joined by others.

[Bird Furious she/her/un/important]

2 minutes ago, Immortal Platypus said:

I come to answer the ultimate question. I am a Platypus, a semi-aquatic mammal. I am the ultimate arbiter. and no. a single molecule of water is not wet. However, it could become wet. if one molecule of water joined another, then both would be wet. So is wetness a property of water? no. But is the capability of wetness a property of water? yes.

 

I am Platypus and I have spoken.

the singular of dice is die.

also, technically, in reality, water will almost always be wet. however, by the definition of wet I've always thought of (to be covered in water), then a single molecule (unrealistic as it is, it is possible) would be dry until joined by others.

Water is not wet. It creates a clingy sensation of wetness. Water is absolutely 100% not wet.

[Quantus he/him]

3 minutes ago, The Halcyon Girl said:

Water is not wet. It creates a clingy sensation of wetness. Water is absolutely 100% not wet.

So if "Wet" is the clingy sensation of a liquid but not the liquid itself, by that definition the Ocean isnt wet, but the Ocean during an oil spill is.  

[Bird Furious she/her/un/important]

1 minute ago, Quantus said:

So if "Wet" is the clingy sensation of a liquid but not the liquid itself, by that definition the Ocean isnt wet, but the Ocean during an oil spill is.  

Nope. The oil is wet. The water is not. 

[Quantus he/him]

6 minutes ago, The Halcyon Girl said:

Nope. The oil is wet. The water is not. 

Nope, that takes it full circle.  Either the ocean isnt itself wet but can only be made wet by adding another wetting liquid (oil), or else the Wetting Liquid is itself Wet, and so both Oil and Water are wet.

[Bird Furious she/her/un/important]

2 minutes ago, Quantus said:

Nope, that takes it full circle.  Either the ocean isnt itself wet but can only be made wet by adding another wetting liquid (oil), or else the Wetting Liquid is itself Wet, and so both Oil and Water are wet.

mmm fine. I'll concede that much.

[OOKLA_the LIV She/They/Lesbian/hungry]

Water is wet.

 

The dictionary definition of wet is ¨Covered or saturated with water or another liquid substance.¨ Water is, essentially, billions of bonded H2O molecules, which are touching each other. If wet is a product of water, and water touching ____ makes _____ wet, then we can logically conclude that because water is touching itself, water is wet. 

We can also take into account the nature of opposites. it is obvious that the opposite of wet is dry. Since we all know that water is definitely not dry, it should be clear that water is wet. You may say that, well there are inbetweens of wet and dry, such as, lets say, moist. *shudders* but ultimately, moist *shudders again* is just wet to a lesser degree. 

SO, my conclusion is that water is wet, just like fire is hot, and earth is... well... earthy. 

 

Yes, I know Im a little late, but I felt the need to stake my claim.

[Immortal Platypus]

38 minutes ago, LIV_SB-DustBringer said:

Water is wet.

 

The dictionary definition of wet is ¨Covered or saturated with water or another liquid substance.¨ Water is, essentially, billions of bonded H2O molecules, which are touching each other. If wet is a product of water, and water touching ____ makes _____ wet, then we can logically conclude that because water is touching itself, water is wet. 

We can also take into account the nature of opposites. it is obvious that the opposite of wet is dry. Since we all know that water is definitely not dry, it should be clear that water is wet. You may say that, well there are inbetweens of wet and dry, such as, lets say, moist. *shudders* but ultimately, moist *shudders again* is just wet to a lesser degree. 

SO, my conclusion is that water is wet, just like fire is hot, and earth is... well... earthy. 

 

Yes, I know Im a little late, but I felt the need to stake my claim.

again. water is not necessarily billions of bonded H2O molecules. One molecule of H2O is a water molecule, meaning that, by your own logic, one molecule of water is not wet. Therefore, we can conclude that water is indeed not inherently wet, and instead is capable of becoming wet.

also, you're wrong about the opposite of wet being dry. Dry is the absence of wet. Just like a lack of matter is not the opposite of matter (that being anti-matter), dry is not the opposite of wet (that being anti-wet).

[Through the Living Shadow he/him]

4 hours ago, kpShadowFox said:

 

OBJECTION!

what if there was only one water molecule?

Well. 

*science goggles*

Water is created by the reaction (and others) 

O2 + 2H2  ->  2H2O

Which inherently creates multiple. And any reaction that’s gonna create water is going to have to have more than the bare minimum, otherwise the molecules will never collide.

[kpShadowFox He/Him]

2 minutes ago, SpiritOfWrath said:

Well. 

*science goggles*

Water is created by the reaction (and others) 

O2 + 2H2  ->  2H2O

Which inherently creates multiple. And any reaction that’s gonna create water is going to have to have more than the bare minimum, otherwise the molecules will never collide.

well now, it eems uve pulled out ze science man-uel. I suppose I will give that battle to you.

[OOKLA_the LIV She/They/Lesbian/hungry]

32 minutes ago, SpiritOfWrath said:

Well. 

*science goggles*

Water is created by the reaction (and others) 

O2 + 2H2  ->  2H2O

Which inherently creates multiple. And any reaction that’s gonna create water is going to have to have more than the bare minimum, otherwise the molecules will never collide.

SO ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO JUST HAVE ONE.

that scenario is purely hypothetical. 

1 hour ago, Immortal Platypus said:

again. water is not necessarily billions of bonded H2O molecules. One molecule of H2O is a water molecule, meaning that, by your own logic, one molecule of water is not wet. Therefore, we can conclude that water is indeed not inherently wet, and instead is capable of becoming wet.

also, you're wrong about the opposite of wet being dry. Dry is the absence of wet. Just like a lack of matter is not the opposite of matter (that being anti-matter), dry is not the opposite of wet (that being anti-wet).

You got me on the dry being absence of wet. but what then, is the opposite of wet? what is anti-wet? And even if they are not opposites, they counteract one another. some thing cannot be both wet and dry in the same spot at the same time. 

[Through The Living Glass She/They]

Just now, LIV_SB-DustBringer said:

SO ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO JUST HAVE ONE.

 

Water vapor in the air only makes up 0.4% of the atmosphere.

So not entirelyv

[Through the Living Shadow he/him]

Just now, Through The Living Glass said:

Water vapor in the air only makes up 0.4% of the atmosphere.

*facepalm*
But….
*sigh*
there are many more than 250 molecules in the atmosphere.

[OOKLA_the LIV She/They/Lesbian/hungry]

13 minutes ago, Through The Living Glass said:

Water vapor in the air only makes up 0.4% of the atmosphere.

So not entirelyv

fair. but water and water vapor are two different things.

ALSO

spoiler tag-- ELANTRIS

Spoiler

HRATHEN WAS FAKING IT?!?!?!? Ash´s eyes, brandon. you got me.

 

Edited October 23, 2024 by LIV_SB-DustBringer

[Through The Living Glass She/They]

Just now, SpiritOfWrath said:

*facepalm*
But….
*sigh*
there are many more than 250 molecules in the atmosphere.

Yeah . . . ?

What I'm saying is water molecules in the air aren't always going to be touching each other.

I shall leave you now.

Just now, LIV_SB-DustBringer said:

fair. but water and water vapor are two different things.

ALSO

spoiler tag

  Reveal hidden contents

HRATHEN WAS FAKING IT?!?!?!? Ash´s eyes, brandon. you got me.

 

You might want to say Elantris spoilers.

[Through the Living Shadow he/him]

Just now, Through The Living Glass said:

Yeah . . . ?

What I'm saying is water molecules in the air aren't always going to be touching each other.

I shall leave you now.

You might want to say Elantris spoilers.

But…

*mild irritation*

How close do they need to be to touch? Because in reality, nothing is in contact with anything.

And besides. Water vapor doesn’t count as water. We aren’t debating about ice, are we?

(and also, a single water molecule would have no phase, so it can’t be water)

[kpShadowFox He/Him]

Just now, SpiritOfWrath said:

But…

*mild irritation*

How close do they need to be to touch? Because in reality, nothing is in contact with anything.

And besides. Water vapor doesn’t count as water. We aren’t debating about ice, are we?

(and also, a single water molecule would have no phase, so it can’t be water)

That daemon spren that you shoved in a shiny stone I unshove from the shine one back into your head, making you write incoherently from being distracted by said daemon spren

[Through The Living Glass She/They]

Just now, SpiritOfWrath said:

But…

*mild irritation*

How close do they need to be to touch? Because in reality, nothing is in contact with anything.

And besides. Water vapor doesn’t count as water. We aren’t debating about ice, are we?

(and also, a single water molecule would have no phase, so it can’t be water)

True, however in gases and liquids the atoms/molecules are often bouncing off each other.

In a glass of water, the H2O molecules are bouncing off each other at such high speeds that they break, and the glass of water no longer has one type of molecule in it, but three:

H2O, H3O, and OH.

I didn't really come here to argue. I just came to confuse people.