• gaael@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    For those who,like me, didn’t get the fitzgerald reference:

    SS Edmund Fitzgerald was an American Great Lakes freighter that sank in Lake Superior during a storm on November 10, 1975, with the loss of the entire crew of 29 men.

    From the Wikipedia article

    • miss phant@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      My favourite answer to this is Emergence, which was explained well in a recent kurzgesagt video.

      Basically Emergence dictates that a group of things (like H2O molecules) can form something greater than the sum of itself (wetness). In the molecules wetness is not a thing, but the interaction of water with something else creates wetness. This concept cannot reasonably be boiled down to the molecular level, it only exists on this plane of existence.

    • OrlandoDoom@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      If something is not wet, we call it dry, still waiting for someone to tell me water is fucking dry.

      I’m just talking about the wetness of water here, I support abortion rights.

      Edit: most comment replies I’ve had on here and it’s about water and if it’s wet. We’re so mundane.

    • Droggelbecher@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      I wouldn’t say so, and for the same reason they claim water isnt wet i claim water is wet: unless it’s just a single molecule, water touches (and even clings to) water. So water is wet.

      • Akareth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago
        • What if you have two molecules of H2O that are below 0°C or above 100°C?
        • What if you have two molecules of some other liquid substance that are also polar like H2O?
        • Droggelbecher@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          I’d say that the liquid phase is implied. Nobody is arguing whether a solid is wet.

          And this is just by feel, but I’d say yes. Wetness is polar liquids sticking to stuff.

    • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Don’t listen to the siren call of Twitter, their claims are based on a flawed understanding of physical science.

      It is true, water makes things wet, it is not in and of itself wet, however all bodies of water you deal with on a day to day basis are not a singular object. They are uncountable multitudes of unconnected molecules of water, touching each other in a glorious slippery puddle of co-wetness.

      Water is thus wet, in liquid form. Interestingly enough, water is by definition not a liquid if it is just a lone molecule, therefore all liquid water exists in the state of mutually assured wetness.

      However, some unearned pedantry is allowed to dunk on bigots. They sure as hell don’t let facts stop them.

  • Flax@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    In order to show their opposition to the pro life movement, all lifeguards have been dismissed