Is Water Wet? The Final Experimental Proof!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 июн 2024
- In this video I join the "is water wet?" debate. I show you with an experiment the true answer to this question. The argument against water being wet is that water makes things wet, but it is not wet. Fire burns, it is not burned. However, instead of arguing semantics, I show you some actual data (with semantics). I think if you follow me through the whole explanation you will agree with me too.
WARNING:
This video is for entertainment purposes only. If you use the information from this video for your own projects then you assume complete responsibility for the results.
My Other Channel:
/ @actionlabshorts
My Facebook Page:
goo.gl/v5Qw9t
For more awesome videos checkout:
Can Light be Black? Mind-Blowing Dark Light Experiments!
• Can Light be Black? Mi...
GOLD Mirror-Polished Japanese Foil Ball Challenge in a Vacuum Chamber!
• GOLD Mirror-Polished J...
Mirror-Polished Japanese Foil Ball Challenge Crushed in a Hydraulic Press-What's Inside?
• Mirror-Polished Japane...
Can You Capture a Light Wave? Mind-Blowing Wave-Particle Duality Experiment!
• Can You Capture a Ligh...
Mixing the World's Blackest Paint With the World's Brightest Paint (Black 2.0 vs LIT)
• Mixing the World's Bla...
Is it Possible to Unboil an Egg? The Amazing Uncooking Experiment!
• Is it Possible to Unbo...
What if You Try To Lift a Negative Mass? Mind-Blowing Physical Impossibility!
• What if You Try To Lif...
What Does a Giant Monster Neodymium Magnet do to a Mouse?
• What Does a Giant Mons...
The Worlds Blackest Black vs The Worlds Brightest Flashlight (32,000 lumen)-Which Will Win?
• The Worlds Blackest Bl...
How Much Weight Can a Fly Actually Lift? Experiment-I Lassoed a Fly!
• How Much Weight Can a ...
If You Fly a Drone in a Car, Does it Move With It? (Dangerous In-Car Flight Challenge)
• If You Fly a Drone in ...
Can Flies Actually Fly in a Vacuum Chamber?
• Can Flies Actually Fly...
I Let a Venus Flytrap Digest My Finger For a Day-Little Shop of Horrors Challenge!
• I Let a Venus Flytrap ...
Drawing On Water-It is So Surreal!
• Drawing On Water-It is...
Can Magic Sand Get Wet in a Vacuum Chamber? So Satisfying!
• Can Magic Sand Get Wet...
Stretch Armstrong Crushed In A Hydraulic Press
• Stretch Armstrong Crus... 
Развлечения
This is what I call extrapolation at its finest! Also answer this, is syrup sticky, is oil slippery, is dirt dirty? All of these imply that you need another object to be stuck, or slip, or to get dirty. However, there is no argument with these. If you don’t say water is wet then you have to say that syrup isn’t sticky, dirt isn’t dirty and oil isn’t slippery!
The Action Lab The whole topic drove me nuts lol keep it up! Btw, congrats on 1 million!🎈🎉🎈🎉
Ikr
The Action Lab ✌✌✌♠♠♠
100%pure water is not wet,it is pure
The Action Lab I have a QTS , we can't see air that means can fish see water?
1973: I bet they’ll have a cure for cancer in the future!
2018: *Is water wet??*
Lol
Lol
Hey, Vsauce! Micheal here
Olo
camzz ahh but there now is
My mom is wondering why I am yelling the word 'drenched' at my phone
Capybara More Like BarelyCapable On my soul I was saying drenched the whole time
Same
I was thinking saturated
Capybara More Like BarelyCapable same here
I was yelling drenched too 😂 I was mad he said dripping and sopping wet lmao
His wife : IM PISSED
Him : let’s mesure how pissed you are
Replace PISSED with WET
No. Just. No.
@@mangotheneko4963 yes
@@rtscuycjkk That sounds very kinky.
I consider "Is water wet?" similar to "Is 1 a prime number?"
1 can only be divided by 1 and itself, but it is not included among prime numbers. In the same way, water is covered by water molecules, but it is not included among wet objects.
Nerd
Just kidding
What really bothers me about this argument is it immediately sets up a false dichotomy- dry vs. wet. What it ignores is that these are descriptors of how objects interact with liquids. Lava is a liquid, but you wouldn't call it wet, would you? Certainly not without being prompted. Even honey or syrup would be a pretty strange thing to call wet, despite the fact they are liquids and you can easily submerge something in them. As acknowledged, this isn't a scientific question, it's a linguistic one, which is why I think this channel fell short on this topic.
"Wet," as a word, is not comparable to "sticky" or "slippery" as stated by the pinned comment. Personally, though, I wouldn't call dirt inherently dirty either, but that's another discussion, and a rather different one since dirt doesn't have a simple molecular definition.
slip·per·y
/ˈslip(ə)rē/
adjective
(of a surface or object) difficult to hold firmly or stand on because it is smooth, wet, or slimy.
"slippery ice"
stick·y
/ˈstikē/
adjective
tending or designed to stick to things on contact or covered with something that sticks.
"her sticky bubblegum"
Both of these describe how the substance itself interacts with any given object. Now look at wet:
wet
/wet/
covered or saturated with water or another liquid.
"she followed, slipping on the wet rock"
Notice it has nothing to do with the substance itself, but rather it's a quality of an affected object.
Additionally, after a point, an object can't get any more wet, despite what's claimed in the video. A piece of cloth submerged in a full kitchen sink is no wetter than a piece of cloth at the bottom of the ocean, so the graph is pretty obviously inaccurate.
As a final point, he says "if we were able to get 100% pure water, that water wouldn't be considered wet." But if that's true, then he's referring to the parts in water being wet.... that aren't water. Otherwise the water would be considered pure.
Really, his biggest mistake is arguing that the definition used in the argument "water isn't wet" actually does apply, when it really doesn't. It's much simpler to bring up the fact that there are definitions that do include water. Water is wet, but it also isn't, because it's- again- a linguistic debate. But language has nuance, and we derive things from context, and in conclusion it would be a mistake to try to box the word in one way or another
@@pokette Okay.
@@pokette alright.
“Really dripping wet” BRO DRENCHED
DilL’s channel Random stuff WATERLOGGED
Eugy7 good one
I was thinking the exact same thing lol, drenched
“Bro drenched” is kind of random, lol! XD
All of you are fools; dripping wet is "drenched/soaking/sopping" it's all the same damn thing, they all are dripping wet lol fools
100 years later:
9th grade science textbook- The Wetness Theory (proposed by Action lab)
Lol!
Kek.
Hello
Test book naa hologram
the real reason water is wet is because it is sticky
To think this was 2 years ago, feels like a week ago
Cool pfp
change it back to hinata now
POV: You randomly searched "Is Water Wet?"
YES
@@TigransTips lol
yes
Yeahhhh yeahhhh you got me
bich Im in
“I think we can all agree this is some pretty MOIST toilet paper”
HB Arterbury get out. 😂😂
Why do people dislike the word moist so much?
TatterCat it sounds weird
No stop
What is so wrong about moist?
The real question is ... is fire on fire?
Talk about the flat water-ers
I bet you made this comment before finishing the video lol.
😱😱😵
ah yes water is on water
Actually its closer to saying fire is not hot. Lol a key means to making things wet is supposedly not wet itself. So a key means to making things hot is not hot itself
Fire is hot
Next question:
Is fire dry?
duh
It could have water vapour in it, giving it a 'percentage' of water and therefore a place on the wetness chart lol
BRUH you must be DUMB
ITS NOT EVEN DRY OR WET
ITS AIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OH MY GOD.........Edit: A fire is from gas. No wonder why people think its "dry"
If anyone r/wooooshes me *then I will quit earth*
@@gamerxxgamer6723 calm down jesus
@@gamerxxgamer6723 Can we have wet fire then🤔
When I fall in a pool: I am not wet. There are just some millions of water molecules that have sticked to me.
*Next Video: **_Is Water Thicc?_*
yes
_Bob McCoy no fuckinf way
_Bob McCoy I like that idea
That punch thicc, no
_Bob McCoy ?
Is water wet??
Mean while gordon ramsay goes to a restaurant:
*This water is dry*
Michaels 😂
Undercooked*
Must have gotten some air
YOU BURNED THE WATER
@@jadengillies4462 the water turns into air if you burn it
Here’s my philosophy.
Google’s definition of wet: covered or saturated in water or another liquid. So if there is a lot of water, it saturates itself with water or another liquid therefore becoming wet. However, if there is only one single H2O molecule, it has no other molecules to saturate it and is therefore not wet. My conclusion is that water is when only when there is more than one molecule of it.
Ergo any water that you can physically see or interact with is wet
Only objects that are wet can make other things wet, it doesn't make sense that water is dry but makes things wet. 💀Water is wet.
@@dvilsadvocate1498 That’s like saying the Flu is sick.
@@Prince-ir7rr no, not only a flu can get you sick. I had the swine flu and was perfectly healthy w no symptoms. So that comparison doesn't make sense. Sand can't get you wet cause it's not wet itself. Only water can get you wet cause water is wet. Literally can only say you're wet when water or anything that has a high percentage of water gets on you. How can something get you wet if it's not wet itself?? Make that make sense.
@@dvilsadvocate1498 I said the flu, as in the organism that causes it, isn’t sick but it causes sickness. It is the presence of water that causes wetness.
That doesn't make sense. If you completely submerge an object in water it is as wet as it's ever gonna be. A paper towel is not more wet just because it's submerged in a pool rather than a bathtub. It has reached is capacity to absorb the water and it's surface only needs a certain set amount of water to be fully covered. Therefore saying that more water = more wet does not make sense because the effect it has on the object does not change. That is what "wet" means. It defines the waters effect on other objects not on waters effect itself. You are even saying this yourself in this video because you actually need to use the toiletpaper or "the system" to have a higher percentage of water to be more wet. But then do it without the paper. Just add water. 1L of water is not less wet than 2L of water. Pour those two amounts of water on two equally sized objects however then the object that got 2L poured over it will be more wet.
Well written & thought out perspective. However, I believe the same argument could be for fire: would you measure the level of hotness based on its temperature? Is a 97 degree cup of coffee less hot than a 100 degree cup because it spent more time on/in/with direct heat? If we were to ever scientifically & culturally accept we can’t produce fire in its purest form then the argument wouldn’t be “is the fire we can produce hot?” rather “how hot can it get?” So I don’t think this experiment was necessarily “is it wet?” rather “how wet is it?” And to answer that, one must define the state of being “wet” and its levels (i.e. degrees) of wetness. He did clearly state dry is the only state where water does not exist. And every other level was not denied of being wet, rather just how wet something can get. Everything you stated was true, it just didn’t directly apply to the inquiry.
he means more saturated. with water.
@@Ch3rryCanary Then i don't think you fully understood my perspective. Like i said, i disagree with his definition of "wet". He is saying that more water = more wet while i think that is wrong. "wet" is a word we use to describe waters effect on another object. Without that second object water is just water on it's own it cannot be wet. I agree that he presented different levels of "wet" but like i said, if the object has reached it's maximum capacity to absorb the water and it's entire surface is covered by the water, then per the definition that i belive is accurate for "wet", it is as wet as it's ever going to be. Because the effect the water has on that object will not change from that point on, no matter how much more water you choose to add.
Therefore the comparison to temperature is not valid in my opinion. Temperature is a much more clear cut scale of measurement, while "wet" describes water in relation to another object. Therefore it would be more appropriate to use percentages to describe wetness as it would vary depending on what object we are measuring. 0% would be completely dry, 10% would be damp, 70% would be dripping and 100% would by fully submerged and absorbed it's max capacity of water. I may have just repeated my view here but i hope this describes my point better.
@@Madmoe999 water molecules touch each other, so if more than 1 molecules of water touching each other than water is wet.
@@rubbish6980 air has water vapor in it, the air is not wet
Lettuce is 95 percent water so lettuce is dripping wet 🤯
Jacktbear - it should be called wettuce.
Ferdinand Kraft lol
Burgur King foot lettuce
u blew ma mind
you just blew my mind
1970: We will have flying cars in the future
2019: Is water wet?
Oh yeah yeah
Sameer Sachan 😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣🤣😂😅🤣😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂
Sameer Sachan 2019 also you and me and max took over the internet so I took mine off
For me I’m watching this in 2019
Sameer Sachan really overused man
Being a liquid, water is not itself wet, but can make other solid materials wet.
Wetness is the ability of a liquid to adhere to the surface of a solid, so when we say that something is wet, we mean that the liquid is sticking to the surface of a material.
Whether an object is wet or dry depends on a balance between cohesive and adhesive forces. Cohesive forces are attractive forces within the liquid that cause the molecules in the liquid to prefer to stick together. Cohesive forces are also responsible for surface tension. If the cohesive forces are very strong, then the liquid molecules really like to stay close together and they won't spread out on the surface of an object very much. On the contrary, adhesive forces are the attractive forces between the liquid and the surface of the material. If the adhesive forces are strong, then the liquid will try and spread out onto the surface as much as possible. So how wet a surface is depends on the balance between these two forces. If the adhesive forces (liquid-solid) are bigger than the cohesive forces (liquid-liquid), we say the material becomes wet, and the liquid tends to spread out to maximize contact with the surface. On the other hand, if the adhesive forces (liquid-solid) are smaller than the cohesive forces (liquid-liquid), we say the material is dry, and the liquid tends to bead-up into a spherical drop and tries to minimize the contact with the surface.
Water actually has pretty high cohesive forces due to hydrogen bonding, and so is not as good at wetting surfaces as some liquids such as acetone or alcohols. However, water does wet certain surfaces like glass for example. Adding detergents can make water better at wetting by lowering the cohesive forces . Water resistant materials such as Gore-tex fabric is made of material that is hydrophobic (water repellent) and so the cohesive forces within the water (liquid-liquid) are much stronger than the adhesive force (liquid-solid) and water tends to bead-up on the outside of the material and you stay dry.
Each h20 molecule connects to each other making each molecule by your definition wet. Water is wet.
@@huh7270 No, Victor quite clearly draws a distinction between, liquids and solids. rightly pointing out that the term "wet" is used to describe when a liquid adheres to a solid. and since water itself is not a solid it isn't wet. It's not just a question of whether or not water molecules touch anything, it's about the different states of matter interacting with each other.
Furthermore, he quite clearly explains why the cohesive bond between liquids is fundamentally different from the adhesive bond between a liquid and a solid which you just seem that have entirely glossed over
if something being wet is simply a question of water molecules interacting with it then the word loses all meaning and purpose, h2o molecules are pretty much almost always touching everything always, seeing as there are gaseous h2o molecules in the air yet saying that everyone is wet at all times is just inaccurate and meaningless. furthermore, it's not just about water, any liquid can make an object wet.
Man just solved the cure for cancer
If you read all of this you are a legend
@@bjrnadriansen348 so if u pour liquid water on ice only then water would be wet?
10 minutes of my time wasted on this and he didn't even say "drenched" smh..
Aaram Williams
Level 10 wetness : Minecraft Sponge in ocean
i was saying "drenched" to my screen and he didnt even say it smh
So who gives two craps
Dripping wet is the same as drenched.
He forgot submerged too. He really didn't prove anything anyways. Just ended up with his opinion at the end. At every level it was the percentage of water making something wet. At 100% there is nothing for the water to make wet. It doesn't make itself wet, but makes things wet.
Is oil wet? Because it doesn't mix with water so it's it dry or is it wet
Its a liquid it makes things wet
It makes thinks wet in a way but its not wet
If it's not wet then what is it
Its just oil, wet is being covered in water or another liquid but liquid form bonds with itself and isn't "covered" by said liquid it just is that liquid
Oil is greasy
No water is flat
Water isn't round Confirmed.
A grain of sand is round
That what I said but my friend keeps saying you can get fizzy water.
TC FG oh...
*LIKE THE EARTH*
I feel like at a certain point, fairly early things kinda hit a limit for wetness. Wetness is simply the interaction between an object and a liquid. At a certain point the object can no longer hold any more liquid, and that that point it reaches it's max wetness. Throw a rock into the ocean vs throwing a rock into a bucket, one is not wetter than the other. Toliet paper that is 0.0001 toliet paper and 99.9999% water is not "more wet", it just barely toliet paper, and if anything, it's just "more water" or just watery.
Water causes dryness and it causes wetness. Just like how you can never make water dry, since reducing the total volume would still leave it at 100% water. Evaporating water would simply move the water into the air, or just outright remove it, causing the volume of water to jump from 100% to 0% instantly, meaning you could never make water dryer, you can also never make water wet. For something to be wet, it first needs to become wet. Water doesn't make other water wet, and you can't increase the overall percent of the water to make it more wet, it's just water, only when you add something else to it, does that object become wet, while the water just stays water. When you get into a pool you become wet, but you don't make the pool dryer.
I agree up until the conclusion. I really think it just comes down to the definition of whether wet extends to water molecules. However I don’t disagree, more or less just think there is no definitive conclusion based on logic.
Like obviously an object has a limit to the amount of wetness it can have as you explained. And when something is described as wet it’s the object that is wet not the system which is something I think he did incorrectly with dripping wet. An object is dripping wet if water is dripping off of it. Even though this describes a system, the object is wet not the system. He incorrectly extended it to the system being wet. However this doesn’t mean water itself isn’t wet, it just means his reasoning is wrong. Whether water is wet or not purely depends on definition. For example an object (except water) is wet if there is water on it. Or something like that. It could be liquids or water ever. However some definition sof wet use the feel of the thing it is describing or the nature of the object not purely the amount of liquid. In this case water is wet because it has liquid like properties.
Its purely whether or not it was chosen that way in the definition used. Funny enough a lot of different definitions are used in situations making for confusing situations. Logically water can be wet and also not wet, which is why this argument can go on forever as different logical claims can be created to support it, like the one in the video and the one you made.
Is syrup sticky? Is oil oily? Is dirt dirty? If water is not wet, then syrup is not sticky, oil is not oily, dirt is not dirty.
@@FlatEarthKiller if you touch it of course it's sticky. But if you put it in water, it's not. So it's depends on stuff connecting it
yea, I understood his point. My only thing is, he's explaining about things being wet, and how much percentage of something is water compared to the thing inside of the water. To me, that doesn't really have anyting to do with the question about the water being wet...only the object inside of it. He did good at explaining that u can't really have 100% water, because there's always something inside of it...even if that something only makes up .001% or whatever the case may be. Like i said, I got his point on what he was talking about, but doesn't really answer the question. Which I believe the answer is just perspective. He just didn't give a solid explanation to his answer in my opinion
@@callmez55 Yes water changes some things..but water doesn't change water. It just changes the percentage of the water to whatever else ratio. Irrelevant lol
This is an interesting point for sure but there is one major flaw with this theory.
In order to further understand this flaw, it is vital that we outline the important terminology used in this video:
System: the overall collection of all particles in the experiment
Water: all H2O particles in the system
Non-Water: All remaining particles in the system that are not H2O
Now lets define exactly what this theory proves.
As Volume of Water grows in direct comparison to the volume of non-water (as the ratio of Water/Non-Water approaches infinity), the ***overall System*** is to be considered more wet. In this theory, The subject is the system. not the water or the non-water. The Action Lab shows in his graph that an asymptote forms at 100%, meaning that it is impossible for this system to reach 100% water. I would like to provide mathematical proof of this by investigating the ratio that we have established.
Using the Ratio of Water/Non-Water -> We can plug in some real measurements to see how the graph will behave:
Water/Non-Water
0g/2g = 0 [no water, DRY]
50g/2g = 25 [moderately moist]
50g/10g = 5 [less wet due to more Non-Water]
10000g/1g = 10000 [obviously dripping wet]
But what if we try 0g of Non-Water?
50g/0g = you cannot divide my zero
It is mathematically impossible to have 0g of Non-Water in the System. It's not even that it simply "isn't wet" it's that a system with a 100% water ratio cannot exist as wet or dry. it cannot be labelled. it cannot be determined. it is an impossible.
now there is one question in which I'm sure people will ask: "why did i chose the ratio of Water/Non-Water? why not have it the other way around with Non-Water/Water? in that case having no Non-water would look like this: 0g/50g = 0!!!" and to that i rebuttal:
This does not line up correctly as we have already established that a system with no Water but Non-Water > 0 is considered dry. if we plug this into both ratios this is the result:
Water/Non-Water: 0g/2g = 0 [ lowest possible number, dry]
Non-Water/Water: 2g/0g = ERROR [not possible]
The error alone does not rule out the ratio, what truly denies this ratio of being true is the fact that we have confirmed and acknowledged as a society that a system with Non-water and absolutely no Water is absolutely, indefinitely dry, meaning that the ratio of Water/Non-Water is the only ratio that supports that fact, meaning it must be used.
Along with this fact, for those of you who still believe that the inverted (not inverse) ratio is still usable, then lets plug in some measurements of a system with only Water:
Non-Water/Water: 0g/328g = 0 [DRY]
If you insist that this ratio is true, then you insist that water is dry, and that a Non-water only system is neither dry or wet, it is an impossible.
Rebuttal aside, lets bring everything together and look at what we've discussed. There are two ratios that we can use, Water/Non-Water OR Non-Water/Water however the latter does not comply with the simple fact that a Non-Water only system is defined as dry. Using the Ratio of Water/Non-Water, a Non-Water only System is completely dry, and a Water only System is neither Wet or dry, it is un-labelable.
Non-Water ONLY System = DRY
Non-Water AND Water System = A PERCENTAGE OF WET
Water ONLY System = CANNOT BE PLACED ON THE SPECRUM OF DRY->WET
This video therefore, puts forward some very interesting finding on Systems, however it fundamentally does not answer the question "Is Water Wet?" It way however give us vital insight into something we have not considered. This video perfectly describes the mathematical definition of "Wet"
Any System that contains BOTH Water AND Non-Water can be considered WET (at different degrees depending on the ratio)
This ultimately means that for a system to be wet, it NEEDS both and therefor a system with only water does not fit this category.
This can be interpreted in 3 distinct ways:
1. following quantum theory, Water is but Wet and Dry at the same time (technically this is debunked by the fact that it cannot be labelled as wet at all)
2. If the water CANNOT be labelled as wet, then is must be dry
3. Water is outside of the realm of the Dry->Wet spectrum and does not fall into any form of categorisation. This falls into the same logic as "a plate can not have have it's mental health assessed" it is simply not the correct subject to fit anywhere in the spectrum.
Ok kool but do you expect me to read all of that?
Did you finish the video before writing this?
In the end he addresses the fact that 100% water could not be called wet. He makes the counterpoint that no water is ever 100% pure, so in practice water is always wet. (Though this still doesn't prove anything, because it's actually the particles in the water that are wet, not the water itself. So I agree with you that water is not on the dry-wet spectrum)
Oh gawd
I’m not gonna read all this lol
This is a great analysis and does effectively rebut the point made in this video.
I would also strongly argue that a non-water substance cannot be considered more wet after it has reached maximum wetness, and therefore the measured system would no longer be a question of wetness or dryness of the system, but instead we would consider the individual object which becomes wet from being in contact with water as being more or less wet.
Measuring wetness or dryness on the scale of the system reaches the conclusion that the ocean is in fact wet, however it is not the ocean itself which is wet but the non-water particles and objects in contact with the ocean (water) which posses a certain quality of wetness between 0 and maximum saturation (drenched, the best word to describe something which has reached maximum saturation of wetness, which Action Lab somehow missed when he opened his dictionary). Water isn't wet because it doesn't wet itself, it binds with itself rather than wets itself.
Me:
> I need to study for my midterms
Also me:
> watching: "is water wet?"
Sebastian Hernandez I actually have final exams tomorrow
Sebastian Hernandez I have exams in 10 days
Sebastian Hernandez lol I should be reading on my finals
Midterms, at the month May???wat
Stop Footage I live in south America m8
So, after all this, you're telling me that Flat Earther's are pissed because the world is round and had to go after something else?
Lol
cujoedaman hahahahaha lol
Who proved it to be round?
cujoedaman
Maybe. Or maybe it is a whole other band of idiots.
RollinStrong (facepalm)
I think wet is only what the water does to something else. Like how dirt isn't "dirty" unless it gets on something. Or dust isn't "dusty" unless it's on something, ect, ect.
Dirt and dust is clean and water is dry?
But dirt IS dirty, and dust IS dusty
this reminds me about that time in second grade when i wrote “the blue, wet water” when we were writing descriptions
the teacher told me to change it when they saw it.
Is mayonasie an instrument
Sunnyside Playz that video should be next
Sunnyside Playz no it a oofca
Yes, but only if it's tuned correctly
*yes*
*YES*
I hear Laurel
LOOOOL
Comenteer this is dead
No it's blue and gold
Eveningbot I how do you hear yanny
I bear yaurel/lanny/yannel
Me: *clicks on video*
My dad: son why is the FBI at our door?
This is a fun video, but I don’t agree with the wetness scale. Specifically, I don’t think we can specify wetness based on the percentage of water content. For example, a solid block of iron would likely be described as “wet” with only a few drops of water on it, while your experiment shows that absorbent materials like a paper towel isn’t normally considered wet until it is nearly 50% water by mass. So “wetness” is really our experience of touching or looking at an object. A wet object will feel wet to the touch (meaning water sticks to our skin when we touch it) or it will look like it would feel wet to touch.
This honestly supports your conclusion that “water is wet” even better than your original argument, because it no longer matters if there is some small percentage of non-water in the system. The only issue here is what it means to touch something which is almost completely water, but water itself has a surface so I think that issue isn’t too confusing.
exactly. If you touch something that's "wet", ur really just touching the water on it, meaning water is wet
Well not really because let’s just say there’s a cup of water a front of you, a dumb person would say because it makes stuff wet water itself is considered “Wet” well no that’s not the case because it does make stuff wet it isn’t necessarily wet itself because the molecule barrier between the two objects for example: a finger dipped in water, the finger is wet because the liquid inside the water. Look at it like this, if you see water from the side you can see a top and a bottom. But on the top the water and the surface is separated-
So what you're saying is, if non water gives off water then it's wet. But does water create more water when you touch it or are you just touching the water in a water only system
It really is a paradox because you need water for something to be wet. Meaning you have to take water out of a system in order for you to say something is wet, not only do you have to take water out, some water has to be left over or you would say the object 'was' wet. Meaning it is no longer wet.
A water only system therefore cannot be wet nor dry because it needs something else in order for it to even be considered wet or dry.
Now would water of different densities or water with different molecular structure get other water wet? We can get ice wet for a time, what about can heavy water get water wet?
Is fire dry?
Edit: verdict, fire is a chemical reaction that produces water vapor as a byproduct. It can be said that fire is neither wet or dry because it’s not a distinctive state of matter (solid liquid or gas) but rather just a form of energy. I think.
No, it's a gas
Boiz your all wrong it’s a plasma
Stick your hand in it and tell us.
Hello Goodbye yes?
Pt. 2
My God, I can't believe I actually watched this whole thing.
Thank you for supporting the channel
@@undertone3538 lol
It's almost like this guy has proven that even idiots can get rich on RUclips. 😳😬
@@TheTransporter007 lol
He literally created a strawman out of toilet paper....any debaters passing through can causal link this guy to death
I thought this question was about different points of view. It sure depends on the definition of the word "wet", but it also depends on the spot the observer is. Let's say there's a fish underwater, swimming on its lake. Then, we go there and get it out of the water (temporarily). So now comer the question: was the fish already wet when it was underwater or did it become wet just when it get in contact with a different fluid, in this case the air? When we are completely underwater, we cannot feel if we are wet or not because every point of space we are in is water. We only feel that we are wet when we get out of the water and get in contact with the air. I get the idea of this video but I think this is more of a philosophical question that don't necessarily needs an answer, and is just interesting to debate to exchange ideas and different points of view one can take on a specific scenario.
Bro just said that air is a liquid
@@Tacos18 bro just thought he was smart
water is a fluid and air is also a fluid just water is much denser
@@kryout5379 bro just thought he was smart
Air is a gas🤦♂️. How tf do you mess this up
@@Tacos18 Well, apparently my comment with links isn't showing.
"Fluid" and "liquid" are different. The word used was "fluid."
Merriam-Webster (y'know, the dictionary) calls a fluid "a substance (such as a liquid or gas) tending to flow or conform to the outline of its container."
NASA says "Liquids and gases are called fluids because they can be made to flow, or move."
Encyclopedia Brtiannica says "fluid, any liquid or gas or generally any material that cannot contain a tangential, or shearing, force when at rest..."
@@Tacos18 bro just thought he was smart
“I’ve seen some pretty good arguments” *shows chaz smiths video of him just screaming*
Is water wet?
What has this world become.
That question's been around for thousands of years.
Let’s agree this is all stupid.
smart
GamerTopper Like or Dislike. It's a matter of philosophy. It is not all that stupid.
I honestly hope thanos comes down and strikes the earth
Is fire burnt then
Not unless you prove it , like this video.
I agree, Water gets things wet but water itself is water, Anything made of liquid can get something wet. it doesnt have to be water at all
Kyle Milford yea but anything that can get sum wet is wet
Kyle Milford no because to say that something is wet means that the water on the surface of that something can be REMOVED.
Definition of wet: To be covered or saturated with another liquid. Since water cannot be covered or saturated with itself it is not wet. It is just water.
Jokunsoo no because you cannot remove the water to make water dry. Because then it is no lobger there. Wet is an adjective that is only supposed to be used when describing something that is typically dry.
It’s not wet; water makes things wet. It’s like saying that fire is burnt
Yes, Exactly!
At the end of the day all this explains is water can get toilet paper wet. The more water we put on toilet paper the wetter the toilet paper is. The Water itself is not wet.
Thank you!! That was exactly what I was thinking.
@The Harry Potter Blog No those particles are wet not the water. You can't just change the premise of the explaination in the middle of the explaination.
Actually, water molecules touch eachother, so for water to not be wet, you'd need 1 molecule of water, therefore water is wet
@@sirbryce2548 by that same logic does a wall touch itself? It's molecules are touching each other so it would be touching itself. That Pervert Wall
@@maverickjac136 yeah technically
I’ll save you some time. He said water was wet
First Name Last Name lmao
THANK YOU!
Obviously
First Name Last Name thanks
First Name Last Name kk
drenched is more than dripping wet id say
i was thinking the same thing. he forgot "drenched" and "soaked"
Let alone flooded
I was triggered he didn’t say that
Saturated
When he said " we are gonna use something that can get wet" he just proved that water isn't wet, cause you can't get water wet
Water in itself is wet
@@Shadow-nr4op
Nope
@@Shadow-nr4op does water cover itself?
@@restrokruc2688 if you imagine them in layers it does
@@Shadow-nr4op if water covered itself thats mean water is not really a water, water has a system wich it will combine to a liquid not covering the liquid but oil is only the ecxecption here
Arguing that 100% water is not wet is like arguing that a convergent series would never reach 1.
This debate is so Stupid. Now, let's talk about a more Intelligent question. *Is Fire hot?*
Edit: 😂 Okay, I've come back to see that some people are taking my comment seriously. Like, calm down everyone I was only Joking
Thanos The Mental Titan
It should be “is fire burnt”
That's what I was thinking, Obviously fire is hot, it's is fire BURNT....
Neon Whiskers fire in itself is not burnt, because fire itself is a visible reaction of the item that is burning.... in order for something to be burnt, there needs to be a chemical change.... when cooking an egg, the chemical components are slightly changed..... but fire is just simply energy in the form of light that's being produced by the chemical change.
With that being said, the fire may only exist when the burnt is happening
Love your channel keep up the brilliant work! However, alcohol can be absorbed by tissue paper so it alcohol wet? Syrup can be absorbed by paper, is syrup wet.
Surely definition of wet is the ability of a substance it hold onto say water without molecular bonding. Therefore is water wet? It does contain impurity’s that often dissolve....no idea!
This made me think of a question,is dry ice wet or dry?
I consider that it should be assumed that water is wet. Do you consider that dirt is dirty? Is oil oily? It is assumed by definition. Many people argue that water is wet because it is surrounded by more water, but would you call oil wet if it is on water?? Arguing this kind of question by science doesn't make sense because our language is flawed. It doesn't make sense to say water is not wet when the two words are so closely associated. Just putting my opinion out there...
You are very correct...
water is not wet because if something dry you can pour water on it and if you can dry it it was wet but if you dry it it's dry but if you take a water bottle can you dry the water inside of it?water makes things wet but its self is not wet.fire burns things but is fire burnt .It doesn't make sense to say water is wet.
learn what wet means before writing a paragraph
Jeannie Zhao l
You are correct. This is not a physical problem but a language problem. Thats why it cannot be proved by regular experiments. People always doing experiments with physical water when the problem is in the language itself. Still, it can actually be proved that water is not wet by the using the correct meaning of words. For example, in order for a liquid to wet something, it has to interact with something that is not itself, so if H2O molecule interact between them it doesnt mean they are being wet, because they are interacting with themself. In order to wet something, it has to interact with something different than itself.
Take a shot for every time he says wet.
I'm a kid...
Why’d you reply to his comment...
Jet Hay Why’d you reply to his reply...
@@dudleysquibbles6366 Why would you reply on his reply on his reply on his comment
RoMa _GaMer why did you reply to the reply to the reply on the comment?
Lol this was kind of ridiculous! 🤣 I've never seen anyone go to such length to prove water is in fact wet! This was funny! 😂😂 I love your videos!
So technically
Water is NOT wet (pure)
But all water on earth is wet
No, he still fails to prove water is wet. The items in the water, no matter how small, are the things that are wet. The water is causing the wetness, but it itself is not wet.
@@EsOoBaCtvp Yes, exactly. His normal logic was out the window on this video.
The word wet has been said so many times, I just can't. It sounds wrong now.
*W E T*
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_satiation
@@Hazzahead actually thanks for the info, I thought that the phenomenon was something more similar to Jean Paul Sartre’s “absurdity of the world”
that's how i feel about the word 'dog.' sounds like some viking language word.
w E t 👹👹
a proper list on the dry - wet scale
1. Dry
2. Damp
3. Wet
4. Soaking wet
5. Sopping wet
6. Drenched
7. Just literal water
EDIT: Omg thank you for 100 likes!
🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️ where’s drenched
6.IS.DRENCHED.
2,5 . MOIST
Omg he changed it
YESSSSSS THANK YOU
An actual proper list
1. Dry
2. Damp
3. Wet
4. drenched
"soaking/sopping/drenched" is dripping wet, it's all the same thing. It's just more or less of whichever one.
The water is not wet - wet is an adjective used to describe saturation with water. Water cannot be saturated with water as saturation requires two different substances which interact.
1970: They will have flying cars in the future
The future: IS WATER WET?
Actually the question that destroyed my household was: Does a straw have 1 hole or two? lol
ha ha, I say one, but I can see why people would say two. I bet my wife would say two.
One
Watch Vsauce video "how many holes does a human have". That should answer all your questions and doubts about counting holes
1. it goes all the way through
1 hollow hole 😂
Really dripping wet? What about drenched? That made me triggered.
When you play too much dayz
I was screaming “drenched”
SAME
When he said really really dripping wet...I said bath lol
It aggravated me that he didn't say drenched or even soaked...
Hey, I am neither very good at English nor am I anywhere near to your level of knowledge about science. However, looking into this, I have some points/guesses to make. As far as I see, from your scale and explanation about "wetness", your scale is describing not the wetness of the water but how pure it is. The assumption that it is very difficult to get 100% water means that, almost every time, there is something inside of it, as you described, which actually makes the things inside of it more wet. Also, from this explanation, it looks like the "wetness" is just the property of the objects to hold water or the water to stick to something. The more wet something is, the more water it contains or the more water is sticking to it. So, "wet" seems to be just a property of an object to have water sticking to it.
I totally agree with you because, from the thing I tried to explain above, "wet" is just water sticking to something and, as we all know (correct me if I am wrong), the water sticks to itself. This is just a different explanation of why water is wet. If we have water and an object inside of it, both of them are going to be wet because water sticks both to itself and to the object. If we isolate the water it is also going to be wet because it sticks to itself.
As I said, I don't try to prove anything. This is just a thought experiment.
the action lab saying "moist" is the best thing ever and my life is completed
from "flat earth" to "is not water wet?"
I think the words your looking for sunken, drenched, drenched, dribbled, submerged, splashing, soggy, sopping. ,sauced, waterlogged, soapy, bubbly, rainy, showery
@@basaamqasem4718 Yep.
Flat earth is a crazy uneducated conspiracy .
Water wet debate is a logical war on the english-scientific terminologies.
Both are crazy but one has something to it
Can water make water wet
Wolfy Vlcak - you have to smack the water and tell it that it's been naughty.
It’s illogical to think you can make something be what it already is.
Absolutely the frick not!
The Gaming Lion It's a joke.
Wolfy Vlcak 🤔😂
The "water isn't wet" statement feels like one of those "you have been living a lie! here is the TRUTH!" types of statements, where people try to make up excuses to make things more complicated and mysterious than they need to be.
I well and truly enjoyed this episode - thank you!
Is the past tense of YEET:
Yeeted or Yote?
YOOOO i always thought it was YEETED but i looked it up and it is YOTE
Yote
What about yate because eat goes to ate?
It's "Walmart Yodeling kid"
Yomato
Water cant be mixed with water to be something different than water
Dur - But what does that have to do with whether or not water is wet? If something is wet, it is “covered or saturated with water or another liquid.” Water in a glass is obviously covered/saturated with water, therefore it is wet. Simple.
But you can mix two different liquids to get something different, now look at the definition of wet, it says any liquid so in conclusion your statement was... Kinda wrong because we are not just talking about water.
water in a glass does not saturate itself, it IS itself.
Not Ethan Stone How so? “Any liquid” includes water. Therefore my statement was actually right.
Water can't make water wet cuz it's the same substance
“Ok so I think we can all agree this is some moist toilet paper”
I lost it lmao
@The Harry Potter Blog its an interesting word
@The Harry Potter Blog m o i s t
@The Harry Potter Blog alright lol
i never understand why people seem to genuinely think water isn't wet
There was nothing I thought I could hate more than the word 'moist' but something in here just topped it 3:02 "moist toilet paper"
Whats about piss moist toilet paper?
😂😂😂🤣🤣
Brendan G for some reason i felt like i was gonna pass out watching this video XD there's something wrong with this video i swear
Brendan G
I don't know why some English people hate the word moist... I mean come on its just a word like any other isn't it?
I see a lot of people hate the word moist... I don't get it.
*I have come to the ultimate conclusion*
Water is wet but water is not wet
It all depends on what the word “wet” means to you, so their is no true answer since so people may view wet’s meaning differently. In conclusion both.
Hannah Cat but the atoms repel each other anyway so water is not wet
TheFinalJedi 478 so you're saying that nothing can get wet
Quantum level: Yes, you're totally right
TheFinalJedi 478 water cannot be dry
Hannah Cat I agree with you on that
Everyone ask is water wet but none asks if water is dry- Oh wait this guy technically made dry water,nevermind.
We used the term wet to explain to others how much water is within or on a surface, not describing the water itself
By this explanation the water itself isn’t wet, but rather the (small) amount the other substance thats in it
agreed .
You're actually smart
I pointed that out too. At some point he decided he was no longer wetting toilet paper and said he was now making water wet
Yeah by his own proof and demonstration water cant be wet so it's kinda dumb he said water can be wet even though hes talking about the small particles in the water
If you are gonna hairsplit, at least go all the way or dont at all.
Take one molecule of water out of the water and its not wet. It can wet other things, but on its own isnt wet bcs its not in contact with other water molecules.
Put it back into water and its wet.
Therefore, water is the source of wetness, and its wet by itself.
If you theoretically had 100% water, wouldn’t it be infinitely wet instead of not wet at all based on your plot?
Sharp Works I would say no because his concept of "wet" was that something contains above 55% water (can't remember) but below 100% . So water we use which is ions and H2O, the ions would technically be what's wet and not the H2O. Once you reach something that is 100% H2O, it can't absorb H2O or dissolve in H2O so therefore it's not necessarily "wet"
Jason Rodriguez ahhh makes sense now I understand
That thing you're saying is not 100% water but 99.9999999999999999% water... Which makes the ratio of H2o and impurity very large. Or rather infinite.
I understood it like, basically, 100% water can't be wet because something needs to have a system in which water is supposed to be added, therefore if there's no system to add water, there is no possible wetness.
Sharp Works yes
Great video! Can you try to figure out if the sun is actually hot?
Caveat: This only applies to liquid water. Non-liquid water (ice and steam) is not wet, though it can wet things as it melts or condenses into liquid water.
But it is not the Water that's wet, it is the object IN the water that's wet! If shoes are dirty, not the dirt is dirty, the shoes are - no matter how dirty they are.
What if the shoes were made of dirt, or you just put dirt on dirt would that make it dirty
Miliop Coc No it won't and I've never seen shoes out of dirt. 🤷
Yes water is wet cuz water is surrounded by more water making it wet. Water can technically be IN more water
rex arroz
What? There are not "TWO" water. It's the same water.
Furthermore liquds can't be wet. A coke can't be wet. You can mix it and that's it.
It's just stupid arguing against this.. 🤦
Ice?
Your graph will never quite reach 100%. Some percentage of the system will always be some object that you're describing as being wet. So since it will never reach 100% you cant put water itself on the same graph. Thatd be like me eating my weight is carrots. 100lbs of me + 100lbs of carrots. I'm now 50% carrot. But no matter how many carrots I eat I will never be 100% carrot and therefore cant call myself a carrot. Likewise you cant say 100% water is wet because once you remove the object you're adding water to it changes the system you're describing.
But how can water not be wet if it makes things wet
@@0oh_no because you need another material to be made wet. Is fire on fire? No because you need an object there to be on fire. 'The paper is on fire' but fire itself cant be on fire. Same with water. Using a quality it gives to other objects cant be used to describe itself.
Anthony Moffa mathematically it’s a limit, you can describe it as material % goes to 0 , water percent goes to 100. It will never quite be but in math is asumes like it is
@@martincooper2175 that may be true, but this isnt a mathematical problem. Its has more to do with the physical properties of the water. Sure you can say that mathematically it's BASICALLY 100% water, but the fact remains that its ACTUALLY not. By the same logic, the paper towel water solution tends towards being 100% water and 100% wet. But since in actuality itll never be 100% water, itll never be 100% wet. Just so close to 100% that's you might as well call it so. But like I said, being so close that's its pretty much there is not the same as being actually there. If I'm 3 centimeters from your front door I'm basically in your house, but I'm really actually not.
Anthony Moffa actually it is the same. I cannot give you an explanation right here cause it would be really long and incoherent but I recommend you to search the explanation of why the area of a circle is radius squared times pi. It uses a method with an very little dx inequality until it turns the circle area into an exact formula.
Since you are considering the wetness of the system, then this works. You can say water and a small portion of toilet paper is wet. But the question asks if water is wet, referring to nothing more than water, H20. So unless you can consider that water is saturated with itself, then it doesn't work. But you dont even need that. Water has dissolved oxygen and carbon dioxide in it, so the water is basically "wet" with the gas molecules in our air. This is because gases are fluids, and wetness is just something saturated with a fluid. So even your "dry" shirts are technically wet with air. It doesn't even have to be with the water itself. So in that sense, water is definitely wet.
You’re confusing fluid with liquid
To be wet it needs a liquid not a fluid which is what a gas is
@@brantleywiley1279 I was using an archaic definition of wetness that isn't used anymore sorry. Some old papers refer to wetting water with carbon dioxide in order to form carbonic acid, which would imply that you can wet something with any fluid, not just liquids. But since that definition isn't used anymore I guess my argument doesn't hold.
Hello! You're actually right! But the thing is. Water isn't wet by itself, but it makes other materials wet when it sticks to the surface of them.
Is water wet🤔
It just ain’t dry
Bria Khalifa 😂
WATER IS NOT WET WHEN A DRY OBJECT GETS WATER IN IT ITS WET
BUT IF YOU WATER ON WATER NOTHING
ZanFlix X Did you copy and paste? I saw you post the same reply on someone else’s comment, lol
Abby Southida no I just copy it from a video
ZanFlix X: BUT IF YOU WATER ON WATER NOTHING
me: *"congrats, you're a Absolute Genius"*
This is simple, water molecules touch other water molecules, that is considered wet...
But no since molecules in water don’t touch themselves
Shivam Bajpai but you’d be right !
@@mr_boo. simple then, either water is wet or nothing is wet.
Water is a thing that wets things. it in of itself is not wet
Technically nothing ever touches but what if you got a single water molecule? It’s still water and not wet!
If 'wet' is measured by the amount of water in an object, how could water be wet? Water cannot be within itself.
YESSSSS
just think about it, a water is the ''parameter'', if subject has ''water'' in it, so it is wet
the analogy is like baby, is a parameter to say someone is pregnant
so if someone has a baby inside her stomach, so she is pregnant
but is baby pregnant???????
baby is the parameter, just like water
@@adamrizky7658 That is a much more understanding way to put it.
When he said soaking wet and dripping wet 💦💦💦💦💦 😂
That Ying Yang Twins song just popped into my head 😂😂😂
Why didn't he say "drenched" as one of the levels of wet
Been watching this guy a long time. And one thing I’ve learned is he’s very good at innuendo and doesn’t even realize it.
This is the type of experiment your science teacher tells you to put saefty glasses on at
So, H2O is 100% pure water, therefore is not wet.
0:27 send this to your crush without context
sfraens S lol
I'm confused
Lol why
Straight up the banging lol
Lol
Was anyone else freaking out because he wouldn’t say drenched throughout the whole video?
Nicothewerewolf YES
I always thought moist came before damp. I always understood damp as meaning "very wet" or "soaked"
Then if something can't have water on it, wouldn't that break the rule? Like if water is wet, and I walk through a puddle with waterproof boots, are my boots wet? I guess that doesn't change the property of the water.
hydrophobic rubberboots in a puddle dont get wet.
action lab would probably still call the "system" around the boots wet.
Forget it.lets come to the real question.Is fire hot?
YOUR NAME umm yes lol there's not even a debate jk Ik your joking
No it’s actually just so cold it feels hot
I don’t know, if hot things burn skin, fire burns skin, I DONT REALLY KNOW MATE??
Of course not! It’s ugly, not hot -_-
It can reach up to 90000 degrees Fahrenheit , i was told.
7:20 And then... pour the swimming pool... into the ocean..? 🤔
😂😂😂
There are things called inflatable swimming pools
Well, the water from it
Or you can take a normal size pool and measure the distance and then put that water into the ocean.
I got in an argument with one of my classmates while trying to convince him and others in the class that water is wet...and I ended up throwing water in his face and storming out of the classroom....not my proudest moment (but also kinda funny, at least to other people in the room)
the water wasn’t wet, your face was
@@koifry35 Yeah, and I definitely don't agree with the chain of logic used in this video. But it goes to show that youtubers are just people, like all of us.
@@socialtwister207lmao. Yeah I'm sure you have the same credentials as the dude in the video
@@Regu269 in the field of English? Yeah I probably have more credentials. That’s all the water being wet argument is about, it’s a matter of the English language. There’s very little science involved.
amogus
also
you can make dry (hydrophobic) water
We are like, what, 70 sum ℅ water? Your skin has water in it, is your skin wet? No, (well, idk, mabey you're in a pool) but the term "wet" is just when water sticks to a surface, resulting lower friction making it feel "wet" or when water absorbs itself into something making it feel wet. water isn't wet, it just makes things feel wet
I’m 75% water but I’m not wet
Hmmmm I wonder..
If I poke a whole in my skin could I drink all the water out of me?
Would I be a raisin!?
Omg I’m going to do it now
Ouch
I CAN SEE NO WATER
The Gaming Team TGT what
The Gaming Team TGT even
Best comment here!!
Your a brave man you did this for science you may have failed but now we know this failure was not for nothing you served this country well
HEY GUYS, THE WATER INSIDE ME IS RED. HOW COOL IS THAT!?!?!?
5:36
Drenched??
5:59
Drowned??
The Last Knight haha.... lets go with RDW and RRDW instead.
I would have preferred submerged
nice
Engorged
7:25 "and then you can pour the swimming pool in the ocean" ahhh now I know why there is garbage in the ocean XD
Actually, the RDW level is when the paper is actually soaking in the water, so it should be called soaking wet. The problem is we generally use that expression as an exaggeration to say something is as wet as if it was soaking, when it's really not.