cross-posted from: https://fedia.io/m/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world/t/944445
good job, lake. this is why you’re superior.
For those who,like me, didn’t get the fitzgerald reference:
SS Edmund Fitzgerald was an American Great Lakes freighter that sank in Lake Superior during a storm on November 10, 1975, with the loss of the entire crew of 29 men.
And here’s the story as a song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuzTkGyxkYI
Apply cold water to the site of the burn
I’ve never thought about water not being wet. This troubles me.
Don’t listen to the siren call of Twitter, their claims are based on a flawed understanding of physical science.
It is true, water makes things wet, it is not in and of itself wet, however all bodies of water you deal with on a day to day basis are not a singular object. They are uncountable multitudes of unconnected molecules of water, touching each other in a glorious slippery puddle of co-wetness.
Water is thus wet, in liquid form. Interestingly enough, water is by definition not a liquid if it is just a lone molecule, therefore all liquid water exists in the state of mutually assured wetness.
However, some unearned pedantry is allowed to dunk on bigots. They sure as hell don’t let facts stop them.
Also since oil and water don’t mix, oil is also not wet, nor does it make things wet.
Since water is touching itself, wouldn’t that make it wet by that definition?
“Most scientists define wetness as a liquid’s ability to maintain contact with a solid surface, meaning that water itself is not wet, but can make other sensation. But if you define wet as ‘made of liquid or moisture’, as some do, then water and all other liquids can be considered wet.”
https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/is-water-wet 9 Nov 2023
My favourite answer to this is Emergence, which was explained well in a recent kurzgesagt video.
Basically Emergence dictates that a group of things (like H2O molecules) can form something greater than the sum of itself (wetness). In the molecules wetness is not a thing, but the interaction of water with something else creates wetness. This concept cannot reasonably be boiled down to the molecular level, it only exists on this plane of existence.
If something is not wet, we call it dry, still waiting for someone to tell me water is fucking dry.
I’m just talking about the wetness of water here, I support abortion rights.
Edit: most comment replies I’ve had on here and it’s about water and if it’s wet. We’re so mundane.
I’ve had the ‘can you make water more wet?’ conversation before. The answer we arrived at varies based on the definition of wet so we had to define wet first.
We concluded that wetness is usually judged by how liquid something is or how much liquid it has with it. Our liquidity was based on viscosity so it’s possible to make a liquid more wet by decreasing viscosity. Viscosity can be altered by adding a different viscosity liquid to it. There are things less viscous than water so in adding them you can make water more wet. Viscosity can also be changed by changing the temperature. As temperature increases viscosity decreases until water becomes a gas and dissipates into the air. We got a bit stuck here since at this point we no longer considered the water to be wet but did think that the air was wet. There was wetness, but since the mix was more air than water the water’s wetness was decreasing. We concluded there was some nebulous level of humidity that would be considered wet, but it would be wet air rather than dry water.
Then we looked at it the other way. At low temperatures the viscosity of water increases until it eventually crystalizes into a solid. As long as it stayed frozen it had none of the properties we considered wet. Completely frozen water could be considered dry.
Then what about dry ice? That’s frozen carbon dioxide, so it is waterless ice. It is called dry because it lacks any water. Is water ice more or less wet than dry ice?