Is Water Wet?

[Cash67]

5 hours ago, kpShadowFox said:

Time to start a forum wide war.

Battles have been fought and lives have been lost over this question

now let us begin

"Gather round children and test your Scientific might against my mystical equation, designed to stupefy the mind and perplex the soul.

Is water wet?

NOW BEGIN, if you dare..."

Water does in fact make other things wet. It is not wet in and of itself.
 

However, in a glass of water, you have many many many many many water molecules, they’re all bouncing off each other, making each other wet. So unless you can isolate a singular water molecule, any water you find will be wet by definition. 

[Through the Living Shadow he/him]

9 minutes ago, Through The Living Glass said:

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. 

Well, I know what you are saying. H3O is like H+.

[kpShadowFox He/Him]

3 pages in 6 hour, thats what I like to see

[Through The Living Glass She/They]

Just now, SpiritOfWrath said:

Well, I know what you are saying. H3O is like H+.

H3O+, actually. The other is OH-

Unless you're saying something else?

[Immortal Platypus]

12 minutes ago, Cash67 said:

Water does in fact make other things wet. It is not wet in and of itself.
 

However, in a glass of water, you have many many many many many water molecules, they’re all bouncing off each other, making each other wet. So unless you can isolate a singular water molecule, any water you find will be wet by definition. 

yes! my fellow platypus, you have chosen the correct position

1 hour 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.

False. It will only naturally occur in multiples. However, through the power of SCIENCE we have actually isolated a single water molecule. source and same source farther down

1 hour ago, kpShadowFox said:

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

oh, don't give up so fast.

28 minutes ago, LIV_SB-DustBringer said:

SO ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO JUST HAVE ONE.

that scenario is purely hypothetical. 

no, it's not. It is impossible for it to occur naturally. That doesn't mean that it can't happen. Please see the earlier source.

Quote

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. 

I have no idea what anit-wet is, just like I don't know exactly what anti-matter is. Also, they contradict each other, not counteract. Also, maybe through some weird Schrodinger's cat thing, maybe they could.

25 minutes ago, LIV_SB-DustBringer said:

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

ALSO

spoiler tag

  Hide contents

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

 

remember to cite which book you're spoiling.

21 minutes ago, SpiritOfWrath said:

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

I mean, a) how do you know it would have no phase, and b) even so, why would that make it not water? The source I read didn't mention that.

Edited October 23, 2024 by Immortal Platypus

[Through The Living Glass She/They]

20 minutes ago, SpiritOfWrath said:

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

I'm not an expert, but couldn't we define the phase of a single molecule by the level of energy it has?

[kpShadowFox He/Him]

10 minutes ago, Through The Living Glass said:

I'm not an expert, but couldn't we define the phase of a single molecule by the level of energy it has?

that would be the way to go...

[Through the Living Shadow he/him]

27 minutes ago, Through The Living Glass said:

I'm not an expert, but couldn't we define the phase of a single molecule by the level of energy it has?

 

31 minutes ago, Immortal Platypus said:

yes! my fellow platypus, you have chosen the correct position

False. It will only naturally occur in multiples. However, through the power of SCIENCE we have actually isolated a single water molecule. source and same source farther down

oh, don't give up so fast.

no, it's not. It is impossible for it to occur naturally. That doesn't mean that it can't happen. Please see the earlier source.

I have no idea what anit-wet is, just like I don't know exactly what anti-matter is. Also, they contradict each other, not counteract. Also, maybe through some weird Schrodinger's cat thing, maybe they could.

remember to cite which book you're spoiling.

I mean, a) how do you know it would have no phase, and b) even so, why would that make it not water? The source I read didn't mention that.

Guys guys guys. A phase is not the energy, but instead is often determined by that. It can be determined by other things, such as pressure. Instead, they are categorized by their behavior. Solids, their behavior is they move as one, and have a set shape. Liquids, they move fluidly, regardless of each other. Gases, they move freely, (and technically fluidly  ) bouncing off of each other.

All of these depend on their interactions with each other. (Gases only float because they are effectively stacked on top of each other, and have a density they want.) if there is only one of them, the only thing they can be categorized as is solid, by technicality.

And. Divide. Water is inherently wet, but might not be after human interaction. But guys, does it even need to be touching itself to be wet? Saturated doesn’t mean touching, it means filled with. So, water is filled with (guess what) water.

[Through The Living Glass She/They]

20 minutes ago, SpiritOfWrath said:

 

Guys guys guys. A phase is not the energy, but instead is often determined by that. It can be determined by other things, such as pressure. Instead, they are categorized by their behavior. Solids, their behavior is they move as one, and have a set shape. Liquids, they move fluidly, regardless of each other. Gases, they move freely, (and technically fluidly  ) bouncing off of each other.

All of these depend on their interactions with each other. (Gases only float because they are effectively stacked on top of each other, and have a density they want.) if there is only one of them, the only thing they can be categorized as is solid, by technicality.

And. Divide. Water is inherently wet, but might not be after human interaction. But guys, does it even need to be touching itself to be wet? Saturated doesn’t mean touching, it means filled with. So, water is filled with (guess what) water.

For even more fun, look up superionic ice!

*leaves*

[Immortal Platypus]

20 minutes ago, SpiritOfWrath said:

 

Guys guys guys. A phase is not the energy, but instead is often determined by that. It can be determined by other things, such as pressure. Instead, they are categorized by their behavior. Solids, their behavior is they move as one, and have a set shape. Liquids, they move fluidly, regardless of each other. Gases, they move freely, (and technically fluidly  ) bouncing off of each other.

yes, I know that the phase is not the energy. And the categorization of liquid is that it maintains a constant volume while changing shape.

Quote

All of these depend on their interactions with each other. (Gases only float because they are effectively stacked on top of each other, and have a density they want.) if there is only one of them, the only thing they can be categorized as is solid, by technicality.

I disagree with your closing statement. Ice is the solid form of water, yes? And water vapor is the gaseous form? So this single molecule would eventually freeze or evaporate, becoming that phase, if it were that phase. Therefore, because it is not ice, and it is not vapor, it must be water, meaning it is liquid.

Even if I'm wrong on this (which is definitely possible, perhaps even probable) and you are right, if the total structure remains the same, I don't think it matters whether it is solid, liquid, or gaseous. The reason we're not discussing ice is because it has a different structure from water. It's structure is more crystalline, but a lone molecule remains the same.

Quote

And. Divide.

i'm not sure what the purpose of these was, so I'm gonna ignore them

Quote

Water is inherently wet, but might not be after human interaction.

I would say that water as it occurs in nature is wet, but that water itself does not have the intrinsic property of being wet, similar to how many animals as they occur in nature are hostile towards each other, but do not have the intrinsic property of being hostile to the other (I think  I might be wrong).

Quote

But guys, does it even need to be touching itself to be wet? Saturated doesn’t mean touching, it means filled with. So, water is filled with (guess what) water.

yes, imo it would need to touch another water molecule to be wet. I would say that a water molecule is saturated with both Hydrogen and Oxygen, the elements it is composed of, not water, though I can see how people would disagree.

 

All in all, I definitely find myself aligning more with your side than I used to, but I still think that a single molecule of water wouldn't be wet.

[Through the Living Shadow he/him]

1 minute ago, Immortal Platypus said:

yes, I know that the phase is not the energy. And the categorization of liquid is that it maintains a constant volume while changing shape.

I disagree with your closing statement. Ice is the solid form of water, yes? And water vapor is the gaseous form? So this single molecule would eventually freeze or evaporate, becoming that phase, if it were that phase. Therefore, because it is not ice, and it is not vapor, it must be water, meaning it is liquid.

Even if I'm wrong on this (which is definitely possible, perhaps even probable) and you are right, if the total structure remains the same, I don't think it matters whether it is solid, liquid, or gaseous. The reason we're not discussing ice is because it has a different structure from water. It's structure is more crystalline, but a lone molecule remains the same.

i'm not sure what the purpose of these was, so I'm gonna ignore them

I would say that water as it occurs in nature is wet, but that water itself does not have the intrinsic property of being wet, similar to how many animals as they occur in nature are hostile towards each other, but do not have the intrinsic property of being hostile to the other (I think  I might be wrong).

yes, imo it would need to touch another water molecule to be wet. I would say that a water molecule is saturated with both Hydrogen and Oxygen, the elements it is composed of, not water, though I can see how people would disagree.

 

All in all, I definitely find myself aligning more with your side than I used to, but I still think that a single molecule of water wouldn't be wet.

Lol didn’t mean to put that and divide there  

[Immortal Platypus]

6 minutes ago, SpiritOfWrath said:

Lol didn’t mean to put that and divide there  

I figured  

[Through the Living Heir he/him]

*poof!* I am here to complicate this question further! If I have a one molecule thick membrane, which has no water on the side you’re touching, but a lot of water on the other, is the membrane wet? 

[Through The Living Glass She/They]

1 minute ago, Dragonheir said:

*poof!* I am here to complicate this question further! If I have a one molecule thick membrane, which has no water on the side you’re touching, but a lot of water on the other, is the membrane wet? 

Yes. There's water touching it.

[Through the Living Shadow he/him]

2 minutes ago, Dragonheir said:

*poof!* I am here to complicate this question further! If I have a one molecule thick membrane, which has no water on the side you’re touching, but a lot of water on the other, is the membrane wet? 

The membrane would break due to the pressure, given that the water “touches” it.

[Through the Living Heir he/him]

3 minutes ago, SpiritOfWrath said:

The membrane would break due to the pressure, given that the water “touches” it.

Not necessarily; say it’s made from a single sheet of phospholipids. You touching it would probably destroy it, though. 

[Through the Living Shadow he/him]

1 minute ago, Dragonheir said:

Not necessarily; say it’s made from a single sheet of phospholipids. You touching it would probably destroy it, though. 

But… the membranes are generally made with a bilayer…

[Through the Living Heir he/him]

3 minutes ago, SpiritOfWrath said:

But… the membranes are generally made with a bilayer…

Ah, but there is only water on one side in my example, so the membrane could point that direction. I wonder if it would osmosis… 

[OOKLA_the LIV She/They/Lesbian/hungry]

3 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

False. It will only naturally occur in multiples. However, through the power of SCIENCE we have actually isolated a single water molecule. source and same source farther down. no, it's not. It is impossible for it to occur naturally. That doesn't mean that it can't happen. Please see the earlier source.

I have no idea what anit-wet is, just like I don't know exactly what anti-matter is. Also, they contradict each other, not counteract. Also, maybe through some weird Schrodinger's cat thing, maybe they could.

HAHA! so, by your own logic, water molecules created in a lab, (or I guess water molecule) is not wet, but naturally occurring water is wet. 

And because there is much, MUCH more naturally occurring water then single water molecules isolated in a science lab, I think that the water we all know, from kitchen sinks and Dasani bottles, is in fact wet. 

(Also, I think you meant anti-wet, and not anit-wet.)

(DOUBLE also, ummm.... sorry about the grammer issues in my posts. its the ADHD and general lack of sleep. And the migrane I had earlier today.)

 

[Treamayne]

18 hours ago, kpShadowFox said:

Is water wet?

Quote

[Adjective]

wet (comparative wetter, superlative wettest)

1. Made up of liquid or moisture, usually (but not always) water.
   • Synonym: wetting
     Water is wet.
2. Of an object, etc.: covered or impregnated with liquid, usually (but not always) water.
   • Synonyms: damp, saturated, soaked; 
     see also Thesaurus:wet Antonym: dry

Dictionary says the answer depends on the context of the adjective
- both definitions are valid and are not mutually exclusive

Edited October 24, 2024 by Treamayne
Format

[Immortal Platypus]

1 hour ago, LIV_SB-DustBringer said:

HAHA! so, by your own logic, water molecules created in a lab, (or I guess water molecule) is not wet, but naturally occurring water is wet. 

um, no. well, kind of. Naturally occurring water happens to be wet strictly because it occurs with another molecule, not because it is intrinsically wet.

Quote

And because there is much, MUCH more naturally occurring water then single water molecules isolated in a science lab, I think that the water we all know, from kitchen sinks and Dasani bottles, is in fact wet. 

so? most water can be wet without the blanket statement "water is wet" being true, just as most people could be great people without the blanket statement "people are great" being true.

2 hours ago, Dragonheir said:

*poof!* I am here to complicate this question further! If I have a one molecule thick membrane, which has no water on the side you’re touching, but a lot of water on the other, is the membrane wet? 

you lost me. If I'm understanding correctly, the side with water would be wet, while the other would be dry.

51 minutes ago, Treamayne said:

Dictionary says the answer depends on the context of the adjective
- both definitions are valid and are not mutually exclusive

where'd you get that definition? It's different from the ones I've seen so far.

[Treamayne]

9 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

where'd you get that definition? It's different from the ones I've seen so far.

Didn't use the links, huh? Wiktionary. But it's not the only one - 

Dictionary.com: (merely reverses the order)

Quote

1. moistened, covered, or soaked with water or some other liquid:

   wet hands.

   Antonyms: dry

2. in a liquid form or state:

   wet paint.

Meriam-Webster.com: (Combines definitions 1 and 2)

Quote

1

a: consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (such as water)

bof natural gas : containing appreciable quantities of readily condensable hydrocarbons

OED has both well - just further apart:

Quote

1. Consisting of moisture, liquid.

6. Made moist or damp by dipping in, or sprinkling or smearing with, water or other liquid

Sorry, I don't know what dictionary you checked, but I cannot find a reputable one without both definitions.

Hope that helps

Edited October 24, 2024 by Treamayne
SPAG

[OOKLA_the LIV She/They/Lesbian/hungry]

9 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

so? most water can be wet without the blanket statement "water is wet" being true, just as most people could be great people without the blanket statement "people are great" being true.

Okay. so water is not all wet. Most water is wet. If the blanket statement water is wet is incorrect, then the blanket statement water is not wet is also incorrect. So my new conclusion is that most water is wet.

side note, you are a formidable enemy, and I respect your respect for the sciences.

[Immortal Platypus]

7 hours ago, Treamayne said:

Didn't use the links, huh? Wiktionary. But it's not the only one - 

Dictionary.com: (merely reverses the order)

Meriam-Webster.com: (Combines definitions 1 and 2)

OED has both well - just further apart:

Sorry, I don't know what dictionary you checked, but I cannot find a reputable one without both definitions.

Hope that helps

I used Dictionary.com and OED. I apparently missed definition 6 in OED. Thanks. I was just curious cause I hadn't seen that one.

4 hours ago, LIV_SB-DustBringer said:

Okay. so water is not all wet. Most water is wet. If the blanket statement water is wet is incorrect, then the blanket statement water is not wet is also incorrect. So my new conclusion is that most water is wet.

Correct. the statement "water is not wet" is false. My statement isn't that water is not wet. My statement is that water does not have the intrinsic property of being wet.

Quote

side note, you are a formidable enemy, and I respect your respect for the sciences.

man, I wish all my debates were this respectful  

[OOKLA_the LIV She/They/Lesbian/hungry]

1 hour ago, Immortal Platypus said:

man, I wish all my debates were this respectful  

Thats me. bringing debate and respectfulness wherever I go.

OKAY. so water is mostly wet, but does not have the intrinsic property of being wet, at least when it occurs in the labs. Dealio?

Edited October 24, 2024 by LIV_SB-DustBringer