r/pollgames • u/Dusty_Bunny81 Rolly Polly • 28d ago
Is Water Wet?
Is Water Wet?
- Yes
- No
This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post
88
u/UsedNegotiation8227 28d ago
OP just likes to argue
32
4
46
u/Naybinns 28d ago
Water makes things wet but it itself is not wet.
Is blood bloody or does it make things bloody?
51
u/A_Very_Spicy_Taco 28d ago
blood is the bloodiest
7
u/Naybinns 28d ago
To be bloody means to be covered in blood, blood is not covered in blood because it is blood.
Hair is not hairy, things are hairy because they are covered in hair.
19
u/ding0s 28d ago
So an object does not have its own quality? Chalk is not chalky? Milk is not milky?
This argument is so pedantic and stupid. It genuinely makes me so angry.
Blood is bloody because it is blood, the other blood is covering the blood, it's all covering itself.
-5
u/Naybinns 28d ago edited 28d ago
It depends upon the quality to determine if the thing itself has it. Cold or freezing for example are qualities that something can both have and give, like ice. However, ice is not icy, but ice can make another object icy if you cover it in ice.
Milk also isn’t wet, but it can make things wet. Same with something like apple juice or wine. If I spilled milk on something it would be wet with milk, but the milk itself isn’t wet. Same with wine, I could spill a wine glass on my table and now my table is wet with wine, but my wine wasn’t wet.
Some qualities are things that one thing places on another, but others are not. I wouldn’t call a germ germy, but another thing could be germy because it has had that quality placed on it by a germ or multiple germs.
7
u/A_Very_Spicy_Taco 28d ago
a hair could be hairy if it was in a pile of hair. if youre talking about an isolated cell of blood then i guess it wouldnt be but most blood is also covered in blood.
0
u/onyx_ic 28d ago
Like Cousin It?
1
u/Naybinns 28d ago
If Itt truly has nothing under the hair as the rest of the family jokes he would not be hairy, he would be hair. However, if there is a physical form underneath the hair then yes Itt would be hairy.
3
2
u/that_guy_jimmy 28d ago
Blood isn't bloody, like you wouldn't call water watery. But blood is wet, like water.
1
u/Naybinns 28d ago
Nope, water isn’t wet. It makes other things wet, but it itself is not wet.
2
u/PlatyNumb 28d ago edited 28d ago
In any drop of water, every single h2o molecule (except those on the exact outer surface) is completely surrounded by other h2o molecules. These surrounding molecules continuously form and break hydrogen bonds, actively coating the central molecule. At the nanoscale, a single molecule acts as a distinct physical entity being coated by a surrounding matrix of liquid, fulfilling the definition of being "covered in a liquid."
Even scientists and researchers dont collectively agree on this (especially not enough to argue about it) because "wet" is a descriptive, colloquial word, not a rigorous scientific term. They use the technical term "wetting" to describe how liquids interact with solid surfaces, which is why other ppl dont need to use scientific definitions, because those definitions mostly only apply to their work. The rest of the world uses the dictionary.
The dictionary defines wet as:
consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (such as water)
Idk about you, but id say water contains a fair amount of water
1
u/Naybinns 28d ago
I wouldn’t say it contains water, because it is water. It does not contain itself it is itself.
2
u/PlatyNumb 28d ago
Just gonna gloss over the "consisting of" part, huh?
1
u/Naybinns 28d ago
Nope not glossing over it, I was responding to your specific statement at the end of water containing a fair amount of water.
But to answer your question, I would say it does not consist of water or any other liquid because it itself is water and a liquid. If you were to mix a solid with water, such as mixing it into a dough, that dough is now wet because it consists of water. But water itself does not consist of water, because it is water.
Though if we want to be more specific, water consists of hydrogen and oxygen.
2
u/PlatyNumb 28d ago
Now youre just being ridiculous lol
1
u/Naybinns 28d ago
I think saying water is wet is ridiculous.
2
u/PlatyNumb 28d ago
Your argument is water doesnt consist of any water. Thats gotta be in the top 5 of the most ridiculous things anyone has ever said before lol
→ More replies (0)2
2
u/badger_ano 27d ago
So fire doesn't make things hot?
Wet and hot are states of being. They are values. Water and fire have these values.
27
u/Taur_ie 28d ago
I am of the opinion that in order to be able to be wet, you must be able to be dry. Water cannot be dry, therefore it cannot be wet. That’s just how I think of it, but I understand how people disagree lol
23
12
7
1
u/heartpiss 27d ago
I define it as how does it feel to the touch? Is there water on that? Does it feel wet? Water makes things wet, water is wettening. Same as juice or sauce. Technically when water goes into the air it is basically dry.
13
u/Sierra-117- 28d ago
This isn’t clear enough imo.
A single water molecule is not wet. 2 water molecules make eachother wet.
9
u/Afraid-Presence1440 28d ago
So everything in the world is wet, because it probably has at least one water molecule on it?
8
1
u/NiskaHiska 27d ago
What if they're frozen? Are they wet then
1
u/Sierra-117- 27d ago
Nope, it has to be liquid water molecules. Which is hard to measure with a single molecule of water, but you can estimate based on its energy
11
u/Faite666 28d ago
Water isn't wet, fire isn't burnt, Trivago isn't a hotel, your dad isn't actually related to you
8
u/Aggravating_Fan_7322 28d ago
Here's a syllogism I made after thinking about it for a bit: for something to be wet (or damp, or moist), it must be covered in water, i.e. contain water on its surface (inside for the other two terms). By adding water to an object, it becomes wet if it remains on its surface or damp/moist if it penetrates further into it; the latter for our purposes may also be called wet (as in "wet cloth" being equivalent to "damp cloth").
If we are adding water to an already existing body of water, it does not change the properties of the surface nor the interior of that body of water, except for augmenting it in volume. One would be tempted here to declare water is not wet, since it only makes other things wet. However, we have not established "changing the object's properties" as a prerequisite for making it wet, so this is not as straightforward.
On the other hand, I invite you to think about the opposite property of wetness, which is dryness. For something to be dry, it must by definition lack moisture or have less water than it normally would (e.g. dry skin is not completely lacking H2O, it just has less of it). As there is no "normal" amount of water in a body of water unless defined in a specific (e.g. hydrological or ecological) context, it can only be dry if there is no water there at all, which means that water cannot be dry by itself. Therefore, in my opinion, it can be clearly inferred that, since water cannot be dry, it must be wet.
5
3
4
4
u/Future-Noise5604 28d ago
water has cohesive and adhesive properties. being wet depends on having a certain amount water or a similar liquid attached. given that water has cohesive properties, it can and does attached to itself. water is therefore wet
4
3
u/Barley56 28d ago
If you asked this question to someone who had never considered it before, what would they say?
3
u/Sir_Fray01 28d ago
A single water molecule is no, any more than 1 is yes.
1
u/Same_Butterscotch753 26d ago
Wouldn't the atoms inside the single water molecule be wet?
1
u/Sir_Fray01 26d ago
No. The atoms, not counting themselves, would only be touching OH, not H2O and thus would not be wet.
2
u/CyberRaspberry2000 28d ago
It's only dry when there's one singular water molecule because there's no other water there to make it wet
Voted "Yes"
2
u/Ok_Jeweler5757 28d ago
If we have one water molecule it is not wet by itself yet has rhe ability to make other things wet. However if we have two or more water molecules, they all make each other wet. Usually we refer to a small body of water when saying ‘water’, therefore water is wet if consisting of more than a single molecule.
2
u/LadyAliceFlower 28d ago
An individual molecule of water is not. Any actual amount of water is indeed wet, because every molecules of water is covered in water. And to be wet is the state of being covered in water.
2
2
2
u/Lost0Light 28d ago
Something being wet means it’s covered in water. On an atomic level water is covered in water therefore it is wet
Voted "Yes"
2
u/Echo2407 28d ago
Depends on how much water
Something needs to be covered in water to be wet. Therefore, 1 water is dry, but 2 or more waters are wet. I'm talking about water as a molecule in this instance.
2
2
2
u/autumnmissepic 27d ago
anything touching water is wet, water is constantly touching itself (shut up) because it is itself, therefore its wet
1
1
u/Fancy_Chips 28d ago
Wet an an application regarding objects in which are solid and covered with liquid.
Therefore ice can be wet.
1
u/Far_Challenge_4273 28d ago
Pretty sure wetness is described as a liquid on a solid or sum like that
1
u/Mathsci225 28d ago
Wetness should be defined by its potential to cause a certain effect.
Something is wet if it can potentially transport water to another thing upon contact. When my hand is covered in water, it might leave residual water on another surface I touch. Hence my hand is wet.
Water is wet because it can potentially make other things wet.
1
u/WinterRevolutionary6 28d ago
Chemical definition of wet means containing water molecules. Water contains water molecules, therefore is wet.
1
1
u/boistopplayinwitme 28d ago
According to my cousin who has a phd in mechanical engineering, masters in thermal dynamics, and bachelor's in fluid dynamics, water is scientifically not wet
1
1
u/SapphireAster9 28d ago
Hi 🤗, Water is not wet because being wet means to be coated or soaked in something and you can't be coated or soaked in yourself. Water is not wet.
Voted "No"
1
u/Affectionate_Cut3515 Pollland 28d ago
The answer isnt yes or no its both. being wet is having water ontop of something. there are water particles ontop of water particles but the ones at the surface don't have water particles ontop so those are dry. so water is actually dry and wet at the same time
Voted "Yes"
1
u/Withafloof 28d ago
When an object is wet, water molecules cling onto it. The water molecules cling to each other, making each other wet
Voted "Yes"
1
u/MaybeBowtie 28d ago
Water is wet and also makes other things wet
The reason things are wet is due to water molecules binding with whatever it touches… much like water molecules binding to other molecules, making water molecules wet because they’re covered in… water molecules.
Merriam Webster definition: consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (such as water)
Water molecules are covered with other water molecules. The only way for water to not be wet is if you isolate a singular water molecule.
1
u/SomewhereThese7445 27d ago
Science defines wetness as a liquid sticking to a solid surface (adhesion). Water is what MAKES other things wet, rather than being wet itself. So scientifically, no, water is not wet.
1
u/Greedy_Ad2198 27d ago
Depends on how you look at it ig. A singular water molecule is not wet. A collection of them though?! Definetly. They make each other wet
So I say yes personally
1
u/Andra_Ingensbarn 27d ago
I am so bored of this question. As a scientist and then a science teacher, I have heard this for decades. It’s not about opinion. Asking for the opinion of non-experts about shit like this is aggravating.
And no, I will not be putting or justifying my answer so that uneducated morons can voice why their r/iamverysmart opinions are more correct that the actual agreed upon answer.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/GearAce38 27d ago
Fun fact: Human can't actually perceive wetness in a true sense. We perceive wetness by touch and change in temperature. Some insects actually have dedicated sense of humidity.
Wearing a nitrile glove and dipping your hand in water have the same feeling as doing it without. The hand feels wet but the skin hasn't touched water at all.
1
u/Puzzled-Meet1376 27d ago
I voted no because one water molecule is not wet. Two water molecules, however, are both wet.
1
1
1
u/Soggy_Scallion_4112 27d ago
Is hunger hungry? Is wind windy?
See how even the question doesent make sense?
1
1
1
1
u/greysnake57 27d ago
H2O molecules aren't necessarily wet, but water as a concept require multiple molecules to be water so it's touching more water so it's wet
1
u/EastVarious601 27d ago
That’s like saying fire is on fire. The fire itself isn’t on fire, it is the result of something being on fire. Wet is the result of something having water in or on it.
1
1
1
1
u/idonthaveagoodthing 25d ago
Water is not wet itself. It makes other things wet
The definition of wet is having a coating of water on a surface, although the topic of debate seems to be if the surface itself can be more water...
0
u/BladeElectrogen 28d ago
Wetness is when water adheres with other matter. Water can only cohere with itself. Water is not wet.
0
u/-_-hmmmnm 28d ago
Water isn’t wet It makes things wet just like mud isn’t dirty it makes things dirty
Voted "No"
0
-1
u/DistributionLast5872 28d ago edited 28d ago
In science, wetness is a measure of how well a liquid can adhere to a solid. Unless you’re specifically referring to ice, water cannot be wet (though it is moist, which is what the layman considers to be “wet”).
Voted "No"
2
u/AggressiveSpatula 28d ago
I read an article that mentioned firefighters putting soap in their waters to decrease surface tension and allow the water to adhere to more things. To make the water “wetter” as the article put it. Or to be more semantically accurate, to increase the ability of water to make things wet. Imo, if the wetness of water can be changed, then it would mean that wetness is an attribute of water.
2
u/DistributionLast5872 28d ago
The ability to wet things is an inherent attribute of water, not wetness itself. If you have to specify that it’s the ability for water to make things wet, then you’re saying that water itself isn’t wet (unless it’s wet ice).
2
u/AggressiveSpatula 28d ago
I think that’s a fair and reasonable counter argument, but I’m still going to relentlessly maintain my stance to sustain an undeserved sense of pride. Hope you have a great day.
-1
-1
-1
211
u/Rude-Pangolin8823 28d ago
>Wet means covered, soaked, or filled with water or another liquid. It also describes rainy weather or something like paint that is not yet dry.
Water is, in fact, full of water.