Water is not wet

[TheArtilleryman]

Visible steam is wet because it contains water droplets.

Water is wet because it contains water droplets. You can always split water in to 2 waters that are then touching and thus wet, they don't even need to solid.

 

[Blue Flying Leaf]

Is solid ice wet ?
Is liquid water wet?
Is steam wet ?

 

[Gandhi's Left Hook]

Water is wet because it contains water droplets. You can always split water in to 2 waters that are then touching and thus wet, they don't even need to solid.

Water is miscible with itself and thus does not contain droplets. Water touching itself is not wetness as it is not applied to a different surface. See below for examples.

Is solid ice wet ?

No, but it can get wet if water is applied to it.

Is liquid water wet?

No, it can never be wet

Is steam wet ?

No, but it can be if it contains water droplets.

 

[Blue Flying Leaf]

There is a term of wet steam for exactly that reason
or a wet towel

 

[Make Anime Illegal]

Water is miscible with itself and thus does not contain droplets. Water touching itself is not wetness as it is not applied to a different surface. See below for examples.

No, but it can get wet if water is applied to it.

No, it can never be wet

No, but it can be if it contains water droplets.

Your confusion results from misunderstanding the meaning of "another surface" to mean "a surface of a different object made of a different material." In reality, A "surface" is just the topological boundary of a subregion (submanifold) of physical space. For example, take the integral form of the first of Maxwell's equations, which states that the electric flux through a surface is proportional to the total net electric charge contained within that surface. This law holds for every subregion of space with a boundary, regardless of what's contained inside. So it applies to the left half of a sphere of water floating in space. The circle separating the left and right hemispheres of the sphere of water is indeed a surface on which the two (different) hemispheres of water are in contact.

The other mistake you are making it treating the word "wet" as if it is a rigorously definined term in physics or chemistry like "covalent bond" or "momentum", which it is not. The word wet appeared in middle English, well before atomic theory was even widely known or accepted, and it derives from the old English wæt, which basically means "water."

 

[Gandhi's Left Hook]

Your confusion results from misunderstanding the meaning of "another surface" to mean "a surface of a different object made of a different material." In reality, A "surface" is just the topological boundary of a subregion (submanifold) of physical space. For example, take the integral form of the first of Maxwell's equations, which states that the electric flux through a surface is proportional to the total net electric charge contained within that surface. This law holds for every subregion of space with a boundary, regardless of what's contained inside. So it applies to the left half of a sphere of water floating in space. The circle separating the left and right hemispheres of the sphere of water is indeed a surface on which the two (different) hemispheres of water are in contact.

The other mistake you are making it treating the word "wet" as if it is a rigorously definined term in physics or chemistry like "covalent bond" or "momentum", which it is not. The word wet appeared in middle English, well before atomic theory was even widely known or accepted, and it derives from the old English wæt, which basically means "water."

You thunk yourself into a box there. Nowhere do I claim that water doesn't have a surface. The chemical and physical definition of wetness is water applied to another surface.

Furthermore wet in old english meant the same as it does now. Something to which water is applied.

 

[Make Anime Illegal]

You thunk yourself into a box there. Nowhere do I claim that water doesn't have a surface. The chemical and physical definition of wetness is water applied to another surface.

Furthermore wet in old english meant the same as it does now. Something to which water is applied.

Well that's extra dumb then, I eagerly await to hear your reasoning about how water is not made up of water. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wet

 

[Gandhi's Left Hook]

Well that's extra dumb then, I eagerly await to hear your reasoning about how water is not made up of water. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wet

View attachment 8533224

Yea about your definition.

 

[Make Anime Illegal]

Yea about your definition.
View attachment 8533249

What about it? Are you going to argue that water is not saturated with water?

 

[Elite Kipchak]

i solved it guys

 

[Gandhi's Left Hook]

What about it? Are you going to argue that water is not saturated with water?

Why would I argue that? Still doesn't make it wet.

 

[Make Anime Illegal]

Why would I argue that? Still doesn't make it wet.

According to the definition you posted, wet means "covered or saturated with water." So being "saturated with water" implies a thing is wet. If water is saturated with water, then it is wet.

 

[Gandhi's Left Hook]

According to the definition you posted, wet means "covered or saturated with water." So being "saturated with water" implies a thing is wet. If water is saturated with water, then it is wet.

No I clearly wrote another surface covered in water.

 

[Make Anime Illegal]

No I clearly wrote another surface covered in water.

No you clearly wrote "Why would I argue that? Still doesn't make it wet."

 

[Gandhi's Left Hook]

No you clearly wrote "Why would I argue that? Still doesn't make it wet."

To the claim of, "would I argue against water touching (being saturated by) itself." Water molecules "touch" each other in as much as any molecule can. Still doesn't make water wet.

 

[Make Anime Illegal]

To the claim of, "would I argue against water touching (being saturated by) itself." Water molecules "touch" each other in as much as any molecule can. Still doesn't make water wet.

Saturation doesn't mean "touching." Can you decide on a "scientific" definition of wetness, state it and stick to it? Your original definition was "contact of a surface with water" and I already showed how water can contact water across a surface so you're just shifting the goalposts now.

 

[Gandhi's Left Hook]

Saturation doesn't mean "touching." Can you decide on a "scientific" definition of wetness, state it and stick to it? Your original definition was "contact of a surface with water" and I already showed how water can contact water across a surface so you're just shifting the goalposts now.

You are the one moving the goalposts tbh. I've been saying the same thing the whole time.

 

[Make Anime Illegal]

You are the one moving the goalposts tbh. I've been saying the same thing the whole time.

If you've been consistent then you've been consistently wrong because as my previous post shows in any given body of water, then across the boundary of a subregion of the interior of the volume containing that water, you have water contacting the surface of water, and hence that water is wet by your original definition.

 

[Gandhi's Left Hook]

If you've been consistent then you've been consistently wrong because as my previous post shows in any given body of water, then across the boundary of a subregion of the interior of the volume containing that water, you have water contacting the surface of water, and hence that water is wet by your original definition.

Wrong again. Be better.

 

[We Are The Witches]

Bold of you to Assume water is H2O and not a proportional mix of H3O+ and HO- ions

A simplification for what the bullshit of this thread is supposed to be.