CCG Disscussion

[MoonlightHugs]

Then I'll agrue that water is in fact not wet.

As you said, water in this case, is the substance that causes an object to get wet if it is containing, covered or soaked with it.

Therefore, water is only the substance that causes a certain object to get wet, so water and the object in question are both needed to cause 'wet'. Not only the substance causing the object to get wet.

One water droplet causes the water droplets next to it to be wet and vice versa. Therefore all water is wet.

 

[Gatsbe]

.

 

[Andyyy]

"Pure water has a slight blue color that becomes a deeper blue as the thickness of the observed sample increases." - Wikipedia

 

[Gatsbe]

.

 

[Miauw]

One water droplet causes the water droplets next to it to be wet and vice versa. Therefore all water is wet.

Once a water droplet comes in contact with another water droplet, they merge, forming a bigger water droplet. Not making each other anymore liquid in the process or adding a new substance.

I would say yes, because the state of being wet is defined as consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid, i.e., water on ice

Indeed, but ice is not a liquid, so when it's submerged in water it indeed becomes wet and considering ice is a form of water, water can indeed become wet under certain circumstances. You're kind of right I guess, gg.

 

[MoonlightHugs]

Once a water droplet comes in contact with another water droplet, they merge, forming a bigger water droplet. Not making each other anymore liquid in the process or adding a new substance.
.

But if two water droplets merge, but there is noone there to see it happen, did they really merge?

 

[Andyyy]

But if two water droplets merge, but there is noone there to see it happen, did they really merge?

sounds like Schrodinger's cat to me

 

[CommunistCactus]

 

[MoonlightHugs]

Something can be either dry or wet. If you touch something that is dry, you remain dry. If you touch something that is wet, you get wet. If you touch water, you get wet. Checkmate.

 

[CommunistCactus]

Something can be either dry or wet. If you touch something that is dry, you remain dry. If you touch something that is wet, you get wet. If you touch water, you get wet. Checkmate.

That's your opinion ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[MoonlightHugs]

That's your opinion ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Damn. Got me there ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Lilleh__]

Damn. Got me there ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That's your opinion ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[MoonlightHugs]

That's your opinion ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That's your opinion ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Gatsbe]

.

 

[MoonlightHugs]

@CommunistCactus Everyone and their aunt has already seen that video (

) and I'm bout to explain why it is wrong.

His first point is: to say something is wet, then the water on the surface of that something can be removed. I'm not sure why he thinks that. I'd say it doesn't have to be able to be removed in order for it to be wet. The way I see it, water makes things wet because it is wet itself. Red paint makes a canvas red because it is red itself. Sugar makes cake sweet because it is sweet itself. Why would water be any different?

His second point is an analogy to fire: fire burns things, but it's not in and of itself burned. The first thing I noticed in this video was the false analogy. Wetness is a physical condition. Some other similar adjectives to wet are dry, red, sweet, etc. Burning is a verb. Fire and water are very different and can't be compared fairly.

His third point just emphasizes his first one. He says that the adjective wet is conditional and is used to describe the surface of something that is typical dry. I can actually agree with this point. Later on in the video, he says that water can not be dry, so therefore water cannot be wet. This doesn't make much sense to me. An object is either wet, having water/liquid on it, or not wet, having no water/liquid on it. If water is neither wet nor dry, then what is it? There is no adjective used that describes an object in the middle of having and not having water/liquid on it. If it's not dry, it's wet. If it's not wet, it's dry.

His last point is that the definition of water is "covered or saturated with water or another liquid." This definition came from google. Google uses the "Oxford Pocket English Dictionary" to define words. A pocket dictionary may not be the best choice to base definitions off of, especially on a matter like this. I would try and find the definition of wet from the original Oxford English Dictionary, but it requires people to sign in before they can see definitions, so no thanks. He says "water cannot be covered or saturated with itself." I say it can. Water consists of water.

:)

Agreed, but it feels like this is something you needed to get off your chest in a while now ever since you first saw the video :p

 

[General Kenobi]

Wet means covered by any liquid on the surface. So what I infer from this is that a single molecule of water isnt wet, but it is wet when other molecules of water surround it in its liquid phase

 

[CommunistCactus]

@CommunistCactus Everyone and their aunt has already seen that video (

) and I'm bout to explain why it is wrong.

His first point is: to say something is wet, then the water on the surface of that something can be removed. I'm not sure why he thinks that. I'd say it doesn't have to be able to be removed in order for it to be wet. The way I see it, water makes things wet because it is wet itself. Red paint makes a canvas red because it is red itself. Sugar makes cake sweet because it is sweet itself. Why would water be any different?

His second point is an analogy to fire: fire burns things, but it's not in and of itself burned. The first thing I noticed in this video was the false analogy. Wetness is a physical condition. Some other similar adjectives to wet are dry, red, sweet, etc. Burning is a verb. Fire and water are very different and can't be compared fairly.

His third point just emphasizes his first one. He says that the adjective wet is conditional and is used to describe the surface of something that is typical dry. I can actually agree with this point. Later on in the video, he says that water can not be dry, so therefore water cannot be wet. This doesn't make much sense to me. An object is either wet, having water/liquid on it, or not wet, having no water/liquid on it. If water is neither wet nor dry, then what is it? There is no adjective used that describes an object in the middle of having and not having water/liquid on it. If it's not dry, it's wet. If it's not wet, it's dry.

His last point is that the definition of water is "covered or saturated with water or another liquid." This definition came from google. Google uses the "Oxford Pocket English Dictionary" to define words. A pocket dictionary may not be the best choice to base definitions off of, especially on a matter like this. I would try and find the definition of wet from the original Oxford English Dictionary, but it requires people to sign in before they can see definitions, so no thanks. He says "water cannot be covered or saturated with itself." I say it can. Water consists of water.

:)

That's your opinion ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Wet means covered by any liquid on the surface. So what I infer from this is that a single molecule of water isnt wet, but it is wet when other molecules of water surround it in its liquid phase

That's your.....
.
.
.
.
.
o p i n i o n ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Lilleh__]

That's your opinion ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That's your opinion ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Stablish]

That's your opinion ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

His opinion ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Fliqa]

His opinion ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You're spamming in all Threads, lol