• lime!@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    17 days ago

    wetting is the process of a liquid adhering to a surface. water by definition can’t be wet

    • Oni_eyes@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      17 days ago

      Liquids don’t have surfaces?

      The property of cohesion means that water is touching and adhering to the surface of other water molecules.

      It doesn’t change Tom Fitton being a shit, but facts do matter.

      • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        17 days ago

        Then literally everything is wet, because the air contains water molecules! But we don’t say everything is wet, just like water molecules touching water molecules don’t make each other wet.

        • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          17 days ago

          The water in the air is not liquid water. Unless it’s raining, in which case it’s very much liquid water, and you’re very wet if you’re standing in it

          • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            17 days ago

            Yes, the water in the air is not liquid water, just like individual water molecules are not liquid water. You got it!

            • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              17 days ago

              An individual water molecule is not liquid, but if it’s touching other water molecules that are in a liquid state, then it is wet.

              • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                17 days ago

                Water molecules can’t be in a liquid state, it’s only the aggregate that’s liquid. Therefore water molecules can’t be wet.

                • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  17 days ago

                  A water molecule (singular) can’t be in a liquid state. Water molecules (plural) can be in a liquid state. It’s important to be precise with our language here

                  • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    17 days ago

                    A single water molecule cannot physically touch enough other water molecules for them to be considered liquid. It can touch water molecules which touch other water molecules, in aggregate making them a liquid, but that makes the water molecule itself part of the liquid, which means it cannot be wet.

          • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            17 days ago

            So literally everything on the surface of the planet, in every building, in every room, is wet? That makes it a completely useless definition and is obviously not what anyone means when they’re talking about something being “wet”.

            • Stovetop@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              17 days ago

              If air with 0% humidity can be called dry, then air with humidity can be called wet.

              Language isn’t perfect and it’s often contextual. If someone wants to describe a property of water based on a newer usage in physics, maybe choose a newer word.

              • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                17 days ago

                If air with 0% humidity can be called dry, then air with humidity can be called wet.

                Yet we don’t do this, we call it humid.

                  • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    17 days ago

                    A measurement of humidity, as the name suggests.

                    Please just explain why we don’t call humid air “wet”. I’ve never heard anyone call it that in any language. How can this be?

            • meowMix2525@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              17 days ago

              It’s not useless if you understand wet as a relative term. There can be a normal level of wetness where if it is exceeded we then call that thing wet, and if it’s under that threshold we call it dry relative to the norm.

        • Oni_eyes@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          17 days ago

          What is humidity other than the measurement of how saturated the air is with water vapor (or how wet the air is)

    • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      17 days ago

      Except for the fact that water by definition is wet

      https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wet

      Fun fact: there is no such thing as a universally accepted definition. Words mean what we mean when we say them. And the vast majority of people use “wet” to describe something that is made up of, touching, or covered in a liquid, especially water. The arbitrary assertion that the definition somehow only applies to solids is just facile contrarianism with no actual basis in linguistics.

      • lime!@feddit.nu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        17 days ago

        yeah but you know what the vast majority of people are like

          • Brainsploosh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            17 days ago

            Please offer a better definition that doesn’t cover other, worse, edge cases. Bonus points if it’s useful.

            “That which water touches is wet” means air, deserts, and even space can be wet. That seems less than meaningful.

            EtA: Also, just wait until you learn about henges

            • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              17 days ago

              “Wet” Is used as an adjective describing something that consists of or is touching some liquid. Nobody seems to have a problem with the concept of wet paint. I can’t imagine anyone other than Sheldon Cooper saying “technically the wall is wet, the paint is liquid!” If you would say that, I have a locker to shove you in

              • Brainsploosh@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                17 days ago

                Does that mean that lava is wet? How about glass? Or a mercury thermometer? Or space, touching liquid/plasmatic hydrogen (or liquified gasses)?

                I wouldn’t call any of those wet in my daily life.

                • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  17 days ago

                  Sure. I wouldn’t usually refer to lava as wet, but I also don’t interact with it very often. Glass is an amorphous solid, so not liquid and so not wet unless it’s touching something liquid or is liquid itself. Liquid mercury exists outside of thermometers as well, and it’s wet both in one and out of one. Space isn’t a thing, and so it you can’t be in contact with anything, and so concepts like wetness and dryness don’t really apply.

                  I also wouldn’t call any of those wet in my daily life, largely because I don’t interact with them very often. I don’t get into hyper pedantic arguments about the ways we define words very often in real life either. Most people simply agree that water is wet

            • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              17 days ago

              Another note (which you mentioning air made me think of), if water “has no surface” then how does it have “surface tension?” Another point for “water touches water.”

              • Brainsploosh@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                17 days ago

                Water touching water surely mixes, no?

                Mixing elements would entail the elements dissolving or at least distributing within the mix, making boundaries between them unclear. The mix can however have a clear edge.

                Does milk wet cocoa, or do they mix? The hot chocolate of course has a surface, but if you add rum to it does it really adhere to it?

                • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  17 days ago

                  Does milk wet cocoa

                  Yes.

                  or do they mix

                  It dissolves when wet, sure, but on a molecular level is the cocoa bonding with the water to become some state other than “wet” or “dry,” or is the dissolved cocoa still “wet?”

                  Matter of fact, we have words to describe the quantity of “wetness.” There’s many synonyms of course, soaked, dessicated, etc, but the base levels are: dry, damp, and wet. If “water is not wet,” then what is it? Do you propose water to be “dry?”

            • meowMix2525@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              17 days ago

              It’s not “less than meaningful” if you understand wet as a relative term. There can be a normal level of wetness where if it is exceeded we then call that thing wet, and if it’s under that threshold we call it dry relative to the norm.

              If you somehow came from a perfectly dry environment, yeah, you would probably consider our world pretty wet. You would have a pretty hard time describing your experience to others if you couldn’t use the word wet to do so. The word doesn’t lose meaning just because you go all reductio ad adsurdum with it.

          • legion02@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            17 days ago

            That’s the actual definition. That’s why bad solder joints are called dry joints and melting the solder across a soldering iron tip is called wetting the tip.