People Twitter

Lake Superior used Scald!

If that's true then holy water is a lie

I disagree. Mixing water and another liquid does not make the second liquid "wet" - it makes a mixture. Then if you apply that mixture to a solid the solid becomes wet until the liquid leaves through various processes and becomes dry. If that process is evaporation, the air does not become wet it becomes humid.

If there is two molecules of water which one is the dry molecule and which one is the wet molecule?

If there are three molecules does one get divided in half to make the other two wet or does only one get wet and one stays dry until a fourth arrives?

well it is superior

I don't know, getting into arguments with sentient geo/hydrological features seems like the kind of thing our ancestors would have done

Water deities in ancient mythologies: Am I a joke to you?

The lake account using 1st person language as Lake Superior.

Are you suggesting that account isn't Lake Superior's account? Clearly lakes microblog.

If I have a single water molecule then it is still water but it isn’t touching any other water molecule, thus it isn’t wet

Wetness is a quality/concept gained from a surface having liquid adhere to it. The liquid itself can't be wet. It's like saying fire is burnt.

There's an argument that a single molecule of water on its own would not be wet, but essentially all water is touched by other water, so even by the needlessly contrarian definition, water is wet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetting

Wetting is the ability of a liquid to displace gas to maintain contact with a solid surface, resulting from intermolecular interactions when the two are brought together.[1] These interactions occur in the presence of either a gaseous phase or another liquid phase not miscible with the wetting liquid.

Saying water is wet because it touches water sounds like "Fire is on fire because it touches fire". It just sounds fundamentally illogical as you're talking about a state of matter, not the matter itself.

I'm not a scientist, just throwing in my view on this

Churchill apocryphally liked his martinis so dry that he would observe the bottle of vermouth while pouring the gin, and that was enough

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

But that's not the definition of wet. Wet is something having liquid adhere to it, usually water. It's a gained quality. Water doesn't adhere to itself, it can't gain the quality of being wet because it is the thing that gives that quality. It's like saying that fire is burnt. It does the burning.

Your mom?

No because these are not comparable things. fire is the chemical reaction changing energy into heat, it IS heat to the extreme.

Seems like fairly civilized conversation in here tbh, I dont really see anyone getting personal. This is the kind of conversation everyone wanted Lemmy to have someday, right? Except for your comment, that one is pretty mean spirited with no intention of joining in the existing conversation and mine, which is taking the bait.