this post was submitted on 15 May 2025
1233 points (98.1% liked)

People Twitter

7016 readers
1677 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

Wwweeeeeeeellllllll see, water is also touching itself constantly. Something being wet is a material surrounded by water, like the fibers of a sponge surrounded by water, in example.

In water, every water molecule is surrounded by water molecules. This means every given water molecule can be considered wet. And thus water is wet.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago (5 children)

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

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 week ago (3 children)

This issue people have with some fixed phrases is bizarre to me.

Might as well say "Actually, this 'morning' isn't 'good' at all!" and pretend you have a point. Really devalues anything following it by revealing the person saying it to be an obnoxious pedant.

But standing up for women's rights this way get's more retweets, which is the ultimate measure of success after all, so what do I know?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Responding like this means you don‘t understand the phrase „good morning“. It means „I wish you a good morning“.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I get a lot of compliments on my use of the English language and I absolutely cannot stand prescriptivists (among other pedants).

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Oh please someone argue this with me!

I love semantic bs!

Water is touching water, so therefore water is wet!

Not that Thomas isn't a piece of shit regardless.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Fair enough. I was not expecting something I could not understand

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Basically, the process of making something wet requires a liquid (usually water) to actually stick to it, through intermolecular forces. That's slightly more narrow a requirement than the "needs to touch water" that's commonly thrown around. A lotus flower or water repellent jacket doesn't get wet, even if you spray water on it, the droplets don't actually stick to the surface.

Now, water molecules stick to each other as well, that's called surface tension. But wetness, at least in physics, is defined at an interface between two mediums, a liquid and a solid, or two liquids that don't mix

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

I learned something new today

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Well fire has a specific definition of something being oxidized, so does being wet.

Like are you wet if you were a molecule of water surrounded by water?

It seems, to me at least, any molecule that wasn't water surrounded by it is wet.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Well fire has a specific definition of something being oxidized, so does being wet.

Which is still a definition for a state (or process/chemical reaction). Something that causes the state/reaction (like oxygen, salt and water on metal) cannot be a state in itself, therefore the logic tells me water in itself cannot be wet as it's not reacting with something else

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

If you drive down far enough, I don't think "wet" even remains to be a property something can have. As was mentioned, what is wetness to an individual molecule? It must be surrounded? Are all molecules "wet" with air, then?

"Wet" as a concept I think is really only useful to people communicating to each other what to expect. For instance, if I asked what was in the fridge, and you said "nothing", it would be weird if I came to correct you: "duh, actually, there is a speck of dust in the corner. And not only that, it's actually completely full! Of air." This is because what you meant was, "to eat."

A "wet" towel will feel damp and watery to a person picking it up in a way almost indistinguishable from water itself, and this is enough to say that both are wet. But, if I had spilled water, and you wanted to know how many things had gotten wet—well, these are a different set of expectations, and so maybe I wouldn't count the water.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

Simply superior

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

Damn, for a lake bragging about making things wet that was some sick burn.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›