• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.

Fun Club is water wet? no

  • Thread starter Deleted member 2
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 2

Guest
I saw a youtube video of this science teacher boldly explaining to his class that water is wet

The basis of his argument could be summarized as "to be wet is to be covered in water; a water molecule is covered by water; therefore water is wet".

I think that's bupkus! Bupkus, I say.
Let's underline our axioms.

What is "wet"?

Oxford dictionary says:

wet​
adjective​
— covered or saturated with water or another liquid.​
verb​
— cover or touch with liquid; moisten.​

Hey, there it is! That teacher probably used this exact definition for his explanation about why water is wet.

Here's the problem, though: a water molecule is not water. His explanation only works if you equate the two.

Oxford defines water as the following:

water​
noun​
— a colorless, transparent, odorless liquid that forms the seas, lakes, rivers, and rain and is the basis of the fluids of living organisms.​

A water molecule isn't liquid. Molecules don't have states—matter has states, and molecules are the building blocks of matter. Solid ice, liquid water, and gaseos vapor are all made up of the same water molecules. A matters state is determined by the interactions between its molecules. This is why a single molecule cannot be a solid, liquid, or gas. So treating a water molecule as the same thing as water is... invalid.

If you take a brick from a house, you'll have a hard time convincing anyone that the brick has its own address.

Now for the real question: Does the pope shit in the woods?

In this essay, I will
 
I'm going to do my own research instead of being told what to think by Big Water.
 
I mean, this needs to be thought of in relative terms, right? If we think about like with an anthropocentrism approach, then water is something that makes YOU wet. Fish can't be wet or dry because fuck fish. If we take a naturalistic approach, water is obviously wet because it carries the properties that could make ANYTHING wet. Fish is wet because it's surrounded by water.

Law/Chaos right there.
 
Mekanos said:
I'm going to do my own research instead of being told what to think by Big Water.
Click to expand...
DxEccjA.jpeg
 
bellydrum said:
A water molecule isn't liquid. Molecules don't have states—matter has states, and molecules are the building blocks of matter. Solid ice, liquid water, and gaseos vapor are all made up of the same water molecules. A matters state is determined by the interactions between its molecules. This is why a single molecule cannot be a solid, liquid, or gas. So treating a water molecule as the same thing as water is... invalid.
Click to expand...

Ice is wet.

pwW2cPc.gif


QED.
 
0
I asked water if it was wet and it didn't answer. What is it hiding from us?
 
0
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top Bottom