This is what I call extrapolation at its finest! Also answer this, is syrup sticky, is oil slippery, is dirt dirty? All of these imply that you need another object to be stuck, or slip, or to get dirty. However, there is no argument with these. If you don’t say water is wet then you have to say that syrup isn’t sticky, dirt isn’t dirty and oil isn’t slippery!
I consider "Is water wet?" similar to "Is 1 a prime number?" 1 can only be divided by 1 and itself, but it is not included among prime numbers. In the same way, water is covered by water molecules, but it is not included among wet objects.
What really bothers me about this argument is it immediately sets up a false dichotomy- dry vs. wet. What it ignores is that these are descriptors of how objects interact with liquids. Lava is a liquid, but you wouldn't call it wet, would you? Certainly not without being prompted. Even honey or syrup would be a pretty strange thing to call wet, despite the fact they are liquids and you can easily submerge something in them. As acknowledged, this isn't a scientific question, it's a linguistic one, which is why I think this channel fell short on this topic. "Wet," as a word, is not comparable to "sticky" or "slippery" as stated by the pinned comment. Personally, though, I wouldn't call dirt inherently dirty either, but that's another discussion, and a rather different one since dirt doesn't have a simple molecular definition. slip·per·y /ˈslip(ə)rē/ adjective (of a surface or object) difficult to hold firmly or stand on because it is smooth, wet, or slimy. "slippery ice" stick·y /ˈstikē/ adjective tending or designed to stick to things on contact or covered with something that sticks. "her sticky bubblegum" Both of these describe how the substance itself interacts with any given object. Now look at wet: wet /wet/ covered or saturated with water or another liquid. "she followed, slipping on the wet rock" Notice it has nothing to do with the substance itself, but rather it's a quality of an affected object. Additionally, after a point, an object can't get any more wet, despite what's claimed in the video. A piece of cloth submerged in a full kitchen sink is no wetter than a piece of cloth at the bottom of the ocean, so the graph is pretty obviously inaccurate. As a final point, he says "if we were able to get 100% pure water, that water wouldn't be considered wet." But if that's true, then he's referring to the parts in water being wet.... that aren't water. Otherwise the water would be considered pure. Really, his biggest mistake is arguing that the definition used in the argument "water isn't wet" actually does apply, when it really doesn't. It's much simpler to bring up the fact that there are definitions that do include water. Water is wet, but it also isn't, because it's- again- a linguistic debate. But language has nuance, and we derive things from context, and in conclusion it would be a mistake to try to box the word in one way or another
BRUH you must be DUMB ITS NOT EVEN DRY OR WET ITS AIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OH MY GOD.........Edit: A fire is from gas. No wonder why people think its "dry" If anyone r/wooooshes me *then I will quit earth*
He forgot submerged too. He really didn't prove anything anyways. Just ended up with his opinion at the end. At every level it was the percentage of water making something wet. At 100% there is nothing for the water to make wet. It doesn't make itself wet, but makes things wet.
Actually its closer to saying fire is not hot. Lol a key means to making things wet is supposedly not wet itself. So a key means to making things hot is not hot itself
Its just oil, wet is being covered in water or another liquid but liquid form bonds with itself and isn't "covered" by said liquid it just is that liquid
That doesn't make sense. If you completely submerge an object in water it is as wet as it's ever gonna be. A paper towel is not more wet just because it's submerged in a pool rather than a bathtub. It has reached is capacity to absorb the water and it's surface only needs a certain set amount of water to be fully covered. Therefore saying that more water = more wet does not make sense because the effect it has on the object does not change. That is what "wet" means. It defines the waters effect on other objects not on waters effect itself. You are even saying this yourself in this video because you actually need to use the toiletpaper or "the system" to have a higher percentage of water to be more wet. But then do it without the paper. Just add water. 1L of water is not less wet than 2L of water. Pour those two amounts of water on two equally sized objects however then the object that got 2L poured over it will be more wet.
Well written & thought out perspective. However, I believe the same argument could be for fire: would you measure the level of hotness based on its temperature? Is a 97 degree cup of coffee less hot than a 100 degree cup because it spent more time on/in/with direct heat? If we were to ever scientifically & culturally accept we can’t produce fire in its purest form then the argument wouldn’t be “is the fire we can produce hot?” rather “how hot can it get?” So I don’t think this experiment was necessarily “is it wet?” rather “how wet is it?” And to answer that, one must define the state of being “wet” and its levels (i.e. degrees) of wetness. He did clearly state dry is the only state where water does not exist. And every other level was not denied of being wet, rather just how wet something can get. Everything you stated was true, it just didn’t directly apply to the inquiry.
@@Ch3rryCanary Then i don't think you fully understood my perspective. Like i said, i disagree with his definition of "wet". He is saying that more water = more wet while i think that is wrong. "wet" is a word we use to describe waters effect on another object. Without that second object water is just water on it's own it cannot be wet. I agree that he presented different levels of "wet" but like i said, if the object has reached it's maximum capacity to absorb the water and it's entire surface is covered by the water, then per the definition that i belive is accurate for "wet", it is as wet as it's ever going to be. Because the effect the water has on that object will not change from that point on, no matter how much more water you choose to add. Therefore the comparison to temperature is not valid in my opinion. Temperature is a much more clear cut scale of measurement, while "wet" describes water in relation to another object. Therefore it would be more appropriate to use percentages to describe wetness as it would vary depending on what object we are measuring. 0% would be completely dry, 10% would be damp, 70% would be dripping and 100% would by fully submerged and absorbed it's max capacity of water. I may have just repeated my view here but i hope this describes my point better.
Here’s my philosophy. Google’s definition of wet: covered or saturated in water or another liquid. So if there is a lot of water, it saturates itself with water or another liquid therefore becoming wet. However, if there is only one single H2O molecule, it has no other molecules to saturate it and is therefore not wet. My conclusion is that water is when only when there is more than one molecule of it.
@@Prince-ir7rr no, not only a flu can get you sick. I had the swine flu and was perfectly healthy w no symptoms. So that comparison doesn't make sense. Sand can't get you wet cause it's not wet itself. Only water can get you wet cause water is wet. Literally can only say you're wet when water or anything that has a high percentage of water gets on you. How can something get you wet if it's not wet itself?? Make that make sense.
@@dvilsadvocate1498 I said the flu, as in the organism that causes it, isn’t sick but it causes sickness. It is the presence of water that causes wetness.
Being a liquid, water is not itself wet, but can make other solid materials wet. Wetness is the ability of a liquid to adhere to the surface of a solid, so when we say that something is wet, we mean that the liquid is sticking to the surface of a material. Whether an object is wet or dry depends on a balance between cohesive and adhesive forces. Cohesive forces are attractive forces within the liquid that cause the molecules in the liquid to prefer to stick together. Cohesive forces are also responsible for surface tension. If the cohesive forces are very strong, then the liquid molecules really like to stay close together and they won't spread out on the surface of an object very much. On the contrary, adhesive forces are the attractive forces between the liquid and the surface of the material. If the adhesive forces are strong, then the liquid will try and spread out onto the surface as much as possible. So how wet a surface is depends on the balance between these two forces. If the adhesive forces (liquid-solid) are bigger than the cohesive forces (liquid-liquid), we say the material becomes wet, and the liquid tends to spread out to maximize contact with the surface. On the other hand, if the adhesive forces (liquid-solid) are smaller than the cohesive forces (liquid-liquid), we say the material is dry, and the liquid tends to bead-up into a spherical drop and tries to minimize the contact with the surface. Water actually has pretty high cohesive forces due to hydrogen bonding, and so is not as good at wetting surfaces as some liquids such as acetone or alcohols. However, water does wet certain surfaces like glass for example. Adding detergents can make water better at wetting by lowering the cohesive forces . Water resistant materials such as Gore-tex fabric is made of material that is hydrophobic (water repellent) and so the cohesive forces within the water (liquid-liquid) are much stronger than the adhesive force (liquid-solid) and water tends to bead-up on the outside of the material and you stay dry.
@@huh7270 No, Victor quite clearly draws a distinction between, liquids and solids. rightly pointing out that the term "wet" is used to describe when a liquid adheres to a solid. and since water itself is not a solid it isn't wet. It's not just a question of whether or not water molecules touch anything, it's about the different states of matter interacting with each other. Furthermore, he quite clearly explains why the cohesive bond between liquids is fundamentally different from the adhesive bond between a liquid and a solid which you just seem that have entirely glossed over if something being wet is simply a question of water molecules interacting with it then the word loses all meaning and purpose, h2o molecules are pretty much almost always touching everything always, seeing as there are gaseous h2o molecules in the air yet saying that everyone is wet at all times is just inaccurate and meaningless. furthermore, it's not just about water, any liquid can make an object wet.
At the end of the day all this explains is water can get toilet paper wet. The more water we put on toilet paper the wetter the toilet paper is. The Water itself is not wet.
@The Harry Potter Blog No those particles are wet not the water. You can't just change the premise of the explaination in the middle of the explaination.
This is an interesting point for sure but there is one major flaw with this theory. In order to further understand this flaw, it is vital that we outline the important terminology used in this video: System: the overall collection of all particles in the experiment Water: all H2O particles in the system Non-Water: All remaining particles in the system that are not H2O Now lets define exactly what this theory proves. As Volume of Water grows in direct comparison to the volume of non-water (as the ratio of Water/Non-Water approaches infinity), the ***overall System*** is to be considered more wet. In this theory, The subject is the system. not the water or the non-water. The Action Lab shows in his graph that an asymptote forms at 100%, meaning that it is impossible for this system to reach 100% water. I would like to provide mathematical proof of this by investigating the ratio that we have established. Using the Ratio of Water/Non-Water -> We can plug in some real measurements to see how the graph will behave: Water/Non-Water 0g/2g = 0 [no water, DRY] 50g/2g = 25 [moderately moist] 50g/10g = 5 [less wet due to more Non-Water] 10000g/1g = 10000 [obviously dripping wet] But what if we try 0g of Non-Water? 50g/0g = you cannot divide my zero It is mathematically impossible to have 0g of Non-Water in the System. It's not even that it simply "isn't wet" it's that a system with a 100% water ratio cannot exist as wet or dry. it cannot be labelled. it cannot be determined. it is an impossible. now there is one question in which I'm sure people will ask: "why did i chose the ratio of Water/Non-Water? why not have it the other way around with Non-Water/Water? in that case having no Non-water would look like this: 0g/50g = 0!!!" and to that i rebuttal: This does not line up correctly as we have already established that a system with no Water but Non-Water > 0 is considered dry. if we plug this into both ratios this is the result: Water/Non-Water: 0g/2g = 0 [ lowest possible number, dry] Non-Water/Water: 2g/0g = ERROR [not possible] The error alone does not rule out the ratio, what truly denies this ratio of being true is the fact that we have confirmed and acknowledged as a society that a system with Non-water and absolutely no Water is absolutely, indefinitely dry, meaning that the ratio of Water/Non-Water is the only ratio that supports that fact, meaning it must be used. Along with this fact, for those of you who still believe that the inverted (not inverse) ratio is still usable, then lets plug in some measurements of a system with only Water: Non-Water/Water: 0g/328g = 0 [DRY] If you insist that this ratio is true, then you insist that water is dry, and that a Non-water only system is neither dry or wet, it is an impossible. Rebuttal aside, lets bring everything together and look at what we've discussed. There are two ratios that we can use, Water/Non-Water OR Non-Water/Water however the latter does not comply with the simple fact that a Non-Water only system is defined as dry. Using the Ratio of Water/Non-Water, a Non-Water only System is completely dry, and a Water only System is neither Wet or dry, it is un-labelable. Non-Water ONLY System = DRY Non-Water AND Water System = A PERCENTAGE OF WET Water ONLY System = CANNOT BE PLACED ON THE SPECRUM OF DRY->WET This video therefore, puts forward some very interesting finding on Systems, however it fundamentally does not answer the question "Is Water Wet?" It way however give us vital insight into something we have not considered. This video perfectly describes the mathematical definition of "Wet" Any System that contains BOTH Water AND Non-Water can be considered WET (at different degrees depending on the ratio) This ultimately means that for a system to be wet, it NEEDS both and therefor a system with only water does not fit this category. This can be interpreted in 3 distinct ways: 1. following quantum theory, Water is but Wet and Dry at the same time (technically this is debunked by the fact that it cannot be labelled as wet at all) 2. If the water CANNOT be labelled as wet, then is must be dry 3. Water is outside of the realm of the Dry->Wet spectrum and does not fall into any form of categorisation. This falls into the same logic as "a plate can not have have it's mental health assessed" it is simply not the correct subject to fit anywhere in the spectrum.
Did you finish the video before writing this? In the end he addresses the fact that 100% water could not be called wet. He makes the counterpoint that no water is ever 100% pure, so in practice water is always wet. (Though this still doesn't prove anything, because it's actually the particles in the water that are wet, not the water itself. So I agree with you that water is not on the dry-wet spectrum)
This is a great analysis and does effectively rebut the point made in this video. I would also strongly argue that a non-water substance cannot be considered more wet after it has reached maximum wetness, and therefore the measured system would no longer be a question of wetness or dryness of the system, but instead we would consider the individual object which becomes wet from being in contact with water as being more or less wet. Measuring wetness or dryness on the scale of the system reaches the conclusion that the ocean is in fact wet, however it is not the ocean itself which is wet but the non-water particles and objects in contact with the ocean (water) which posses a certain quality of wetness between 0 and maximum saturation (drenched, the best word to describe something which has reached maximum saturation of wetness, which Action Lab somehow missed when he opened his dictionary). Water isn't wet because it doesn't wet itself, it binds with itself rather than wets itself.
Kyle Milford no because to say that something is wet means that the water on the surface of that something can be REMOVED. Definition of wet: To be covered or saturated with another liquid. Since water cannot be covered or saturated with itself it is not wet. It is just water.
Jokunsoo no because you cannot remove the water to make water dry. Because then it is no lobger there. Wet is an adjective that is only supposed to be used when describing something that is typically dry.
I feel like at a certain point, fairly early things kinda hit a limit for wetness. Wetness is simply the interaction between an object and a liquid. At a certain point the object can no longer hold any more liquid, and that that point it reaches it's max wetness. Throw a rock into the ocean vs throwing a rock into a bucket, one is not wetter than the other. Toliet paper that is 0.0001 toliet paper and 99.9999% water is not "more wet", it just barely toliet paper, and if anything, it's just "more water" or just watery. Water causes dryness and it causes wetness. Just like how you can never make water dry, since reducing the total volume would still leave it at 100% water. Evaporating water would simply move the water into the air, or just outright remove it, causing the volume of water to jump from 100% to 0% instantly, meaning you could never make water dryer, you can also never make water wet. For something to be wet, it first needs to become wet. Water doesn't make other water wet, and you can't increase the overall percent of the water to make it more wet, it's just water, only when you add something else to it, does that object become wet, while the water just stays water. When you get into a pool you become wet, but you don't make the pool dryer.
I agree up until the conclusion. I really think it just comes down to the definition of whether wet extends to water molecules. However I don’t disagree, more or less just think there is no definitive conclusion based on logic. Like obviously an object has a limit to the amount of wetness it can have as you explained. And when something is described as wet it’s the object that is wet not the system which is something I think he did incorrectly with dripping wet. An object is dripping wet if water is dripping off of it. Even though this describes a system, the object is wet not the system. He incorrectly extended it to the system being wet. However this doesn’t mean water itself isn’t wet, it just means his reasoning is wrong. Whether water is wet or not purely depends on definition. For example an object (except water) is wet if there is water on it. Or something like that. It could be liquids or water ever. However some definition sof wet use the feel of the thing it is describing or the nature of the object not purely the amount of liquid. In this case water is wet because it has liquid like properties. Its purely whether or not it was chosen that way in the definition used. Funny enough a lot of different definitions are used in situations making for confusing situations. Logically water can be wet and also not wet, which is why this argument can go on forever as different logical claims can be created to support it, like the one in the video and the one you made.
yea, I understood his point. My only thing is, he's explaining about things being wet, and how much percentage of something is water compared to the thing inside of the water. To me, that doesn't really have anyting to do with the question about the water being wet...only the object inside of it. He did good at explaining that u can't really have 100% water, because there's always something inside of it...even if that something only makes up .001% or whatever the case may be. Like i said, I got his point on what he was talking about, but doesn't really answer the question. Which I believe the answer is just perspective. He just didn't give a solid explanation to his answer in my opinion
@@callmez55 Yes water changes some things..but water doesn't change water. It just changes the percentage of the water to whatever else ratio. Irrelevant lol
I think wet is only what the water does to something else. Like how dirt isn't "dirty" unless it gets on something. Or dust isn't "dusty" unless it's on something, ect, ect.
This is a fun video, but I don’t agree with the wetness scale. Specifically, I don’t think we can specify wetness based on the percentage of water content. For example, a solid block of iron would likely be described as “wet” with only a few drops of water on it, while your experiment shows that absorbent materials like a paper towel isn’t normally considered wet until it is nearly 50% water by mass. So “wetness” is really our experience of touching or looking at an object. A wet object will feel wet to the touch (meaning water sticks to our skin when we touch it) or it will look like it would feel wet to touch. This honestly supports your conclusion that “water is wet” even better than your original argument, because it no longer matters if there is some small percentage of non-water in the system. The only issue here is what it means to touch something which is almost completely water, but water itself has a surface so I think that issue isn’t too confusing.
Well not really because let’s just say there’s a cup of water a front of you, a dumb person would say because it makes stuff wet water itself is considered “Wet” well no that’s not the case because it does make stuff wet it isn’t necessarily wet itself because the molecule barrier between the two objects for example: a finger dipped in water, the finger is wet because the liquid inside the water. Look at it like this, if you see water from the side you can see a top and a bottom. But on the top the water and the surface is separated-
So what you're saying is, if non water gives off water then it's wet. But does water create more water when you touch it or are you just touching the water in a water only system
It really is a paradox because you need water for something to be wet. Meaning you have to take water out of a system in order for you to say something is wet, not only do you have to take water out, some water has to be left over or you would say the object 'was' wet. Meaning it is no longer wet. A water only system therefore cannot be wet nor dry because it needs something else in order for it to even be considered wet or dry. Now would water of different densities or water with different molecular structure get other water wet? We can get ice wet for a time, what about can heavy water get water wet?
I am not sure if I can agree with this. your extrapolation appears flawed by making an incorrect core assumption that your extrapolation is then based on. ie a logical flaw. Can oxygen burn? Ignoring same equals same (ie O2) to burn is combination with oxygen. so oxygen does not burn. IT DOES the burning when things "combine" with it. "wet" I think is similar. When you stick your hand in water your not touching something that is "wet" you are "becoming" wet by sticking your hand in the water. When you stick your hand in fire you are not "fire" you are being burned BY fire. I think the logical fallacy is that wet is a "thing" when it is not. wet is a "state of being" "an action taken upon" water or any other "liquid" is the source of this changed state of being this action taken upon. from that logical point of view (which could be as incorrect as I think yours logical pov might be) water is no more wet than oxygen can burn. water DOES the wetting. oxygen DOES the burning. your water with contaminants is not wet. the CONTAMINANTS are wet.
Also fire and wet are not the same fire dose NOT soak into objects water is always at the top of wet scale like fire is always on the top of the fire scale things can burn but they dont absorb the fire but thing absorb water and can hold water in side of them and if you realy think about it everyting is always wet because most things have even the tinest of moister and water is what makes things wet so water there for is wet so your analagys are invalid because you compare fire that burns things through heat if you heat anything hot enough even withought making fire it will burn water or wet nes wont come from tempatures is a liquid not a fire that is just something being burned from high temperatures
Also oxegen is just a componet to burning you would also meed heat and fuel mean while water dosent need anything else to wet things so water wetting is bye itself fire is a combination of many things so your analagy is like comparing a fuel source for fire as fire even though it dosent have the oxygen or the heat to Burn but water allone can make things wet thats why water is wet because nothing has to be added to water to make things WET so since water dosent combined with anything else to make this wet YOUR ANALAGYS ARE WRONG
YESSSSS just think about it, a water is the ''parameter'', if subject has ''water'' in it, so it is wet the analogy is like baby, is a parameter to say someone is pregnant so if someone has a baby inside her stomach, so she is pregnant but is baby pregnant??????? baby is the parameter, just like water
No, he still fails to prove water is wet. The items in the water, no matter how small, are the things that are wet. The water is causing the wetness, but it itself is not wet.
Is fire dry? Edit: verdict, fire is a chemical reaction that produces water vapor as a byproduct. It can be said that fire is neither wet or dry because it’s not a distinctive state of matter (solid liquid or gas) but rather just a form of energy. I think.
I thought this question was about different points of view. It sure depends on the definition of the word "wet", but it also depends on the spot the observer is. Let's say there's a fish underwater, swimming on its lake. Then, we go there and get it out of the water (temporarily). So now comer the question: was the fish already wet when it was underwater or did it become wet just when it get in contact with a different fluid, in this case the air? When we are completely underwater, we cannot feel if we are wet or not because every point of space we are in is water. We only feel that we are wet when we get out of the water and get in contact with the air. I get the idea of this video but I think this is more of a philosophical question that don't necessarily needs an answer, and is just interesting to debate to exchange ideas and different points of view one can take on a specific scenario.
@@Tacos18 Well, apparently my comment with links isn't showing. "Fluid" and "liquid" are different. The word used was "fluid." Merriam-Webster (y'know, the dictionary) calls a fluid "a substance (such as a liquid or gas) tending to flow or conform to the outline of its container." NASA says "Liquids and gases are called fluids because they can be made to flow, or move." Encyclopedia Brtiannica says "fluid, any liquid or gas or generally any material that cannot contain a tangential, or shearing, force when at rest..."
@@Shadow-nr4op if water covered itself thats mean water is not really a water, water has a system wich it will combine to a liquid not covering the liquid but oil is only the ecxecption here
I consider that it should be assumed that water is wet. Do you consider that dirt is dirty? Is oil oily? It is assumed by definition. Many people argue that water is wet because it is surrounded by more water, but would you call oil wet if it is on water?? Arguing this kind of question by science doesn't make sense because our language is flawed. It doesn't make sense to say water is not wet when the two words are so closely associated. Just putting my opinion out there...
water is not wet because if something dry you can pour water on it and if you can dry it it was wet but if you dry it it's dry but if you take a water bottle can you dry the water inside of it?water makes things wet but its self is not wet.fire burns things but is fire burnt .It doesn't make sense to say water is wet.
You are correct. This is not a physical problem but a language problem. Thats why it cannot be proved by regular experiments. People always doing experiments with physical water when the problem is in the language itself. Still, it can actually be proved that water is not wet by the using the correct meaning of words. For example, in order for a liquid to wet something, it has to interact with something that is not itself, so if H2O molecule interact between them it doesnt mean they are being wet, because they are interacting with themself. In order to wet something, it has to interact with something different than itself.
a proper list on the dry - wet scale 1. Dry 2. Damp 3. Wet 4. Soaking wet 5. Sopping wet 6. Drenched 7. Just literal water EDIT: Omg thank you for 100 likes!
An actual proper list 1. Dry 2. Damp 3. Wet 4. drenched "soaking/sopping/drenched" is dripping wet, it's all the same thing. It's just more or less of whichever one.
water being wet depends on how we define something with our artificial vocabulary. for example, wetness could be considered a chemical reaction for double example, what happens if water touches something extremely hot? it evaporates, HOWEVER, what happens when really hot water touches something really cold? this is what we call a chemical reaction. therefore, water is or isnt wet depending on how we define wetness. which can change in different situations. the same goes for lava. also, fire IS burned or burnt. how can you have fire without a source? we may say its burning, but it is litterally a burnt fuel/source having as chemical reaction with oxygen. therefore it is burning while also being burnt. chemical reactions arent as simple as "it is" or "isnt"
This debate is so Stupid. Now, let's talk about a more Intelligent question. *Is Fire hot?* Edit: 😂 Okay, I've come back to see that some people are taking my comment seriously. Like, calm down everyone I was only Joking
Neon Whiskers fire in itself is not burnt, because fire itself is a visible reaction of the item that is burning.... in order for something to be burnt, there needs to be a chemical change.... when cooking an egg, the chemical components are slightly changed..... but fire is just simply energy in the form of light that's being produced by the chemical change.
100% water does not prove water is "wet". You're trying to take a colloquialism and make it scientific. Wet refers to some object having or absorbing water. Without an object there's nothing to make wet because wet refers to a state something is in. Water is a liquid. You can't make it more "watery" or less "watery" it's H20 every time. Water itself can't be "wet" because water can't be "dry". It's like saying "Is dirt dirty?" "That mud looks muddy" It's just mud and when you apply it to an object that makes it muddy. It's a colloquialism, not science.
Water does infact make other water "wet" in the same way a sponge is wet when filled with water. The molecules of water surround other molecules of water.
rdizzy1 except that water itself isn't an object, hence water covering water doesn't make it more or less wet?? You're saying 3L water for example is more wet than 1L of water..? Whut.
I think the words your looking for sunken, drenched, drenched, dribbled, submerged, splashing, soggy, sopping. ,sauced, waterlogged, soapy, bubbly, rainy, showery
Flat earth is a crazy uneducated conspiracy . Water wet debate is a logical war on the english-scientific terminologies. Both are crazy but one has something to it
Hey, I am neither very good at English nor am I anywhere near to your level of knowledge about science. However, looking into this, I have some points/guesses to make. As far as I see, from your scale and explanation about "wetness", your scale is describing not the wetness of the water but how pure it is. The assumption that it is very difficult to get 100% water means that, almost every time, there is something inside of it, as you described, which actually makes the things inside of it more wet. Also, from this explanation, it looks like the "wetness" is just the property of the objects to hold water or the water to stick to something. The more wet something is, the more water it contains or the more water is sticking to it. So, "wet" seems to be just a property of an object to have water sticking to it. I totally agree with you because, from the thing I tried to explain above, "wet" is just water sticking to something and, as we all know (correct me if I am wrong), the water sticks to itself. This is just a different explanation of why water is wet. If we have water and an object inside of it, both of them are going to be wet because water sticks both to itself and to the object. If we isolate the water it is also going to be wet because it sticks to itself. As I said, I don't try to prove anything. This is just a thought experiment.
The water is not wet - wet is an adjective used to describe saturation with water. Water cannot be saturated with water as saturation requires two different substances which interact.
*I have come to the ultimate conclusion* Water is wet but water is not wet It all depends on what the word “wet” means to you, so their is no true answer since so people may view wet’s meaning differently. In conclusion both.
Dur - But what does that have to do with whether or not water is wet? If something is wet, it is “covered or saturated with water or another liquid.” Water in a glass is obviously covered/saturated with water, therefore it is wet. Simple.
But you can mix two different liquids to get something different, now look at the definition of wet, it says any liquid so in conclusion your statement was... Kinda wrong because we are not just talking about water.
he basically used the toilet paper to demonstrate that the more water there is the more wet the system is and when there's 100% water (only water and nothing else) that's when it's really really wet. And that's why water is wet haha
The "water isn't wet" statement feels like one of those "you have been living a lie! here is the TRUTH!" types of statements, where people try to make up excuses to make things more complicated and mysterious than they need to be.
He still didn't prove water is wet. All he did was show there are substances in the water that are wet from the water, but water being the substance that causes the wetness is itself not wet because the water is itself so it cannot be of another substance.
Your graph will never quite reach 100%. Some percentage of the system will always be some object that you're describing as being wet. So since it will never reach 100% you cant put water itself on the same graph. Thatd be like me eating my weight is carrots. 100lbs of me + 100lbs of carrots. I'm now 50% carrot. But no matter how many carrots I eat I will never be 100% carrot and therefore cant call myself a carrot. Likewise you cant say 100% water is wet because once you remove the object you're adding water to it changes the system you're describing.
@@0oh_no because you need another material to be made wet. Is fire on fire? No because you need an object there to be on fire. 'The paper is on fire' but fire itself cant be on fire. Same with water. Using a quality it gives to other objects cant be used to describe itself.
Anthony Moffa mathematically it’s a limit, you can describe it as material % goes to 0 , water percent goes to 100. It will never quite be but in math is asumes like it is
@@martincooper2175 that may be true, but this isnt a mathematical problem. Its has more to do with the physical properties of the water. Sure you can say that mathematically it's BASICALLY 100% water, but the fact remains that its ACTUALLY not. By the same logic, the paper towel water solution tends towards being 100% water and 100% wet. But since in actuality itll never be 100% water, itll never be 100% wet. Just so close to 100% that's you might as well call it so. But like I said, being so close that's its pretty much there is not the same as being actually there. If I'm 3 centimeters from your front door I'm basically in your house, but I'm really actually not.
Anthony Moffa actually it is the same. I cannot give you an explanation right here cause it would be really long and incoherent but I recommend you to search the explanation of why the area of a circle is radius squared times pi. It uses a method with an very little dx inequality until it turns the circle area into an exact formula.
Sharp Works I would say no because his concept of "wet" was that something contains above 55% water (can't remember) but below 100% . So water we use which is ions and H2O, the ions would technically be what's wet and not the H2O. Once you reach something that is 100% H2O, it can't absorb H2O or dissolve in H2O so therefore it's not necessarily "wet"
I understood it like, basically, 100% water can't be wet because something needs to have a system in which water is supposed to be added, therefore if there's no system to add water, there is no possible wetness.
Yeah by his own proof and demonstration water cant be wet so it's kinda dumb he said water can be wet even though hes talking about the small particles in the water
If you are gonna hairsplit, at least go all the way or dont at all. Take one molecule of water out of the water and its not wet. It can wet other things, but on its own isnt wet bcs its not in contact with other water molecules. Put it back into water and its wet. Therefore, water is the source of wetness, and its wet by itself.
Well, you just defined wet as being saturated in water, so regardless of the exorcise you've done to provide a graph, this hinges on something being inside the water and saturated or covered in water in some way. My argument is that water can't be saturated in itself at it's barest terms without accounting for the things typically in water because those are often counted as the water itself. Water can't saturate or coat itself, so water isn't wet, but it can saturate or coat other things, so water makes things wet.
But why can't water saturate itself? By the definition of "saturate", to saturate is to cause (something) to become thoroughly soaked with liquid so that no more can be absorbed. I would argue that water is thoroughly soaked with liquid, therefore it is saturated with itself.
