In a sense
If you took a surface and coated it with a completely hydrophobic substance could that surface actually be considered "wet" even if covered in beads of water? Not so much.
Oil and water in a container- is the oil wet?
Is a substance desolved in water wet?
So even though your God is the God of wetness, you will concede that my God, the God of Water Repellent (aka RainX)) is far superior to yours.
pic related - your God pf Drizzle
cover. verb. : to put something over, on top of, or in front of (something else) especially in order to protect, hide, or close it
water === water
water != something else
water != wet
For fuck's sake, I thought we were finally over this. The answer is obviously yes.
How do you tell if something's wet? You touch it with your hand, and it feels wet.
What happens if you touch water with your hand? It fucking feels wet.
Is this pic "wet"???
Define Wet. then we can talk. enough with your vague liberal arts words - I need scientific precision here.
"Wet" is simply how we describe other non-liquid things, or our own personal being, when we have some sort or liquid on us. Usually in small amounts, anymore and you're drenched.
You've got to be kidding me.
You know something is wet it it makes other things wet (queue sex jokes). When you touch a wet towel, your hand gets wet. That's how you know the towel is wet. Similarly, toucher water makes your hand wet. What does that say about water?
OK; so its not a universal term with precise meaning?
Thats fine - we just need to make it clear what teh word means and what it does not mean. Thus we know the word's limits. I'm done.
ok, try this one: "not yet having dried or hardened"
and for the sake of argument, i'll include the definition of dry "Free from moisture or liquid" and the definition of liquid "A substance that flows freely but is of constant volume, having a consistency like that of water or oil" since you retards can't seem to get this shit through your heads
"Ice" being a solid can therefore be covered with liquid water and so he "wet". Also apparently ice retains a liquid boundary at its surface regardless of how cold the temperature is. So ice is always wet.
>When science meets semantics
No I think this is more of a Schroedinger';s cat situation - ice is solid until you touch it and your body heat melts the ice to make it liquid. Unbeknownst to you of course.
Anyway, sooner or later some faggot at Oxford will fix this little semantics oversight and make water officially wet.
That will be a historic day indeed
Its so wet in fact that when you touch it, the wetness becomes less wet and then after its less wet you get wet and it becomes more willing to become less wet and wants to be morenthan wet so it can be more like dry but less like wet because water has oxygen in it too. Yeah. Majyesee.
Water is what makes things wet. Wetness cannot be wet by definition. Water is the saturation or covering of something with itself. It does not saturate itself. It is the saturation or covering.
A wet hand tower is saturated with water to a degree that it is no longer just towel, but tower containing water inbetween and on its surface.
I would say that it is wet, because at that scale, it is covered with droplets that consist of far more than, say, a few molecules of the substance.
Something about this isn't right. If being wet meant being in contact with liquid water molecules, then words like damp, or soggy wouldn't make any sense. They depend on the physics and nature of sizable amounts of dihydrogen monoxide molecules aggregating to form a fluid substance known as water, so that the substance known as water can affect the other substances to make them "wet".
>Water is the saturation or covering of something with itself
>Wetness is the saturation or covering of something with water itself
Should also ask everyone to determine what wetness is grammatically speaking, and what water is grammatically speaking. It should make sense when you consider that a noun and an adjective are related somehow.
Absolutely. Think of sticking your hand in a body of water, then removing it. Your hand isn't uniformly covered in water, nor is the water truly viscous enough to remain on your hand in large amounts, is it? It usually runs down your hand towards gravity, with the remainder of it pooling into droplets on your skin because it lacks the means to leave your hand. Whether that's because of its failed inertia due to its insufficient weight, the smoothness of your skin, the absorbent factor of your skin, and so on and so forth, you'll not have a hand that is surrounded by water. Water, if we're to be precise, being a body of substance.
Huh. Well, couldn't I just also make up a formula using random variables? Or stick all kinds of real formulas together haphazardly? I mean, there might be another way to quantify what I said. Maybe I could make a formula to describe wetness, but it would take longer than I think this thread would live. I don't really have a full idea on how to do that, but I have some sense of how to represent density, weight, frequency, molecular concentration, surface area, the chemical composition of water, variables representing a dry mass... but that doesn't sound very intuitive or straightforwards at all. It doesn't make sense to me, at least, to describe water using several equations and sentences of a purely quantifiable nature. Wetness as an adjective, the way it was being discussed, and the way it's commonly understood, isn't quite 1 or 2. An adjective describes an attribute. It really does seem hard to convey an attribute with 1 or 2, values that don't quite convey anything on their own without context.
Water is a fluid substance. Or, I said it was. And a substance can be thought of as matter Matter can take different forms, and we call those states. The most commonly known states are solids, liquids, and gasses. Matter in a solid state is rigid. It doesn't "move", really, and it remains in its intermolecular alignment while it is a solid if left unperturbed; you can break a solid piece of matter physically, but in most cases, you would end up with smaller forms of solid matter that "refused" to break the intermolecular alignment between each individual molecule of solid matter.
the important ting about formulae is +, * squares, etc. So wetness increases as the square root of distance for example.
We lknow that sound decreases at a square of distance for example -ear is 4x further then volume is 1/4^2 away or 1/16th.
Need precision for Wetness pls.
The next state would be liquid. And that state differs from that of solid matter. Liquid matter is matter consisting of molecules that are not subject to the same kinds of intermolecular forces that cause the rigid alignment of solid molecules. The intermolecular forces are weaker, and the molecules more energetic, and so, the molecules "go" around one another. They aren't completely unaffected by one another, however, and so loosely remain "together". Thus, the form of liquid matter is formless itself, in most settings where solid matter is not. So long as we are talking about the surface of Earth, with Earth gravity and all kinds of solid Earth surfaces, liquid matter would not take on a form of its own. It would take on the form of things around it, where there is enough of it to form a body of itself. Where there is enough of the matter, to form a fluid substance. Water, being a fluid substance, is then also capable of filling any space not smaller than individual water molecules, because it is amorphous and formless in that environment. It will proceed to move and disassociate in favor of the forces that are stronger than its intermolecular bonds. And, since water lacks rigidity, it can be separated into smaller forms of itself as a substance. Meaning, it can become "droplets", as opposed to an entire body or quantity (say, a bottle-shaped liter of water). Water also has several other properties that make it slightly unique in a sense, and this ensures that droplets remain droplets well after they form. Even if you were to shake your hand a bit. And the act of having water disassociate like that upon solid states of matter is called "wetness". There's some saturation or covering of a solid substance with a liquid substance- more than mere molecules. Water, "sticks". But, not really. It, "wets".
Gaseous matter is just liquid matter without any real intermolecular restriction. Molecules flying freely more or less. Not being plasma.
Well, minus the particulars, I thought of the following:
(total amount of constituent particles of fluid substance) / (total amount of constituent particles of target solid substance))) <= (3/4)
And I'm only really guessing that there needs to be at best ~75%, where each total amount of constituent particles is measured in molarity, mols. I guessed ~75% by going against the definition's conditions; if you have more solid than liquid, and not equal presence of fluid and solid substance or more liquid than solid (when both are interacting), then something must be wet, and not drenched, fully soaked, or dry.
(total amount of constituent particles of fluid substance per square unit of measure) / (total amount of constituent particles of target solid substance per unit of measure) <= (3/4)
More or less the same principle as before, with surface area getting involved. Anything more, and maybe that's a bit too much overkill. Maybe if the problem became more complex, and you wanted to accurately define what creates a specific kind of wetness, like dampness, or the quality of being soaked, maybe you could start playing with mass, and forces of gravity. Probably pressure, I don't know.
I forgot about dryness. Somewhere in there it has to be defined that the result must be greater that 0%. Probably, ~15%? ~25% sounds nicer. I suppose you'd have to actually solve for a case in real life to see just how much water can saturate something until it seems "wet", and record the results.
Can refer to the liquid as a verb.
Ipso facto water is by definition wet.
The only time wet (as a verb) is used in place of water (as a verb), is when it is part of a dialect. If you go to define moist, an adjective, it refers to wet, as an adjective.