![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
the wetness of water: a discourse
WARNING: Nerdiness. Blame it on my being a Life Science major if you want :P
Early this morning (around 12 mn to 1 am), Cassy and I had a lengthy, complicated YM debate. The topic: is water wet or not? (don't ask how we thought to argue about this; you don't want to know) Cassy started things off by stating that an object is wet when you put water on it; thus, for water to be wet, you have to put water on water, which makes no sense. So wet objects are wet because they have water, but water in itself is not wet; it is simply a wetting agent. I countered with a (nerdy) analogy on oxidizing agents. An oxidizing agent is called such because it is oxidizing/it causes substances to become oxidized. If it didn't have the property of being an oxidizing substance, it wouldn't be called an oxidizing agent. Thus, if water is a wetting agent, it has to have the property of being wet in order to make other things wet. But I had no proof that what is applicable for oxidizing agents also applies to water. So I used the best research tool in the world: Google. I found a website that says "it is the nature of water to be wet, just as it is the nature of rocks to be hard and of grass to be green." Basically, if water isn't wet, it isn't water. Not a very scientific argument, but I doubt scientists ever wasted their time debating on the wetness of water. Eventually, Cassy and I realized that we had different definitions of "wetness"; I considered wetness to be "the intrinsic property of fluids that enables them to cling to and interact with other surfaces without drastic changes in their molecular structure" while Cassy defined wetness as "the characteristic of objects that have been exposed to water/fluids", which she considers as the layman's definition. Okay, so if you define wetness in that way, there's still no reason for water not to be wet. Let's say you have an object, like a shirt, which is initially dry. When you add water, the shirt becomes wet. But if the shirt wasn't wet before and you claim that water isn't wet, how did the shirt become wet? Where did the wetness come from, if not from water? And eventually, after almost an hour of debate, we came to the conclusion that water is wet.
Cassy also used Google to look for some facts on water, and she found a site that basically says wetness is synonymous with "clinginess", which is a property caused by the presence of ions that interact readily with the environment. Since this person claims that water is made up only of neutral H2O molecules, it does not meet this requirement and is thus not wet because H2O molecules would prefer to interact with themselves rather than with their surroundings. First of all, water is NOT made up of entirely of H2O molecules; the dissociation of water into H+ and OH- is a spontaneous reaction, although it occurs at a low rate (0.0000001 moles per second, I think). So if the presence of ions is the only requirement for wetness, then water is wet. Secondly, even if water only had molecular H2O, it would still interact very readily with its environment. Water can interact with anything that can form hydrogen bonds; that's why water is the universal solvent. So I really don't understand what the writer of this article is trying to get at.
Even after Cassy and I finally decided to end the debate (we both had an 8 am class the following morning.. hehe oh well..), I was still thinking about the topic. I was wondering why some people don't think water is wet. Then I thought of an analogous example: salt (specifically, table salt). Can anyone say that salt isn't salty? I'll assume that no one has any doubts on the saltiness of salt. We say that something is salty when it contains salt, right? But this does not, in any way, detract from the saltiness of salt. So why does the definition that "something is wet when it contains water" cast doubt on the wetness of water? Maybe I just have some logic flaws or something, but I can't think of a reason why people would think that water isn't wet.
Anyway. Enough nerdiness. Today was the last day of classes before the exams. We don't have classes until Thursday next week, and the first exams will start on Friday. And then we'll finally be able to go home! :D If we survive the exams. *sigh* Oh well, there's no sense in worrying. In the words of the oh! so wise Cassandra: Bahala na.
I think I'm starting to get addicted to KoL. Does anyone know a good place to get Muscle points? My HP is pathetically low, so I'm not progressing as much as I should. Any help would be greatly appreciated :D
Early this morning (around 12 mn to 1 am), Cassy and I had a lengthy, complicated YM debate. The topic: is water wet or not? (don't ask how we thought to argue about this; you don't want to know) Cassy started things off by stating that an object is wet when you put water on it; thus, for water to be wet, you have to put water on water, which makes no sense. So wet objects are wet because they have water, but water in itself is not wet; it is simply a wetting agent. I countered with a (nerdy) analogy on oxidizing agents. An oxidizing agent is called such because it is oxidizing/it causes substances to become oxidized. If it didn't have the property of being an oxidizing substance, it wouldn't be called an oxidizing agent. Thus, if water is a wetting agent, it has to have the property of being wet in order to make other things wet. But I had no proof that what is applicable for oxidizing agents also applies to water. So I used the best research tool in the world: Google. I found a website that says "it is the nature of water to be wet, just as it is the nature of rocks to be hard and of grass to be green." Basically, if water isn't wet, it isn't water. Not a very scientific argument, but I doubt scientists ever wasted their time debating on the wetness of water. Eventually, Cassy and I realized that we had different definitions of "wetness"; I considered wetness to be "the intrinsic property of fluids that enables them to cling to and interact with other surfaces without drastic changes in their molecular structure" while Cassy defined wetness as "the characteristic of objects that have been exposed to water/fluids", which she considers as the layman's definition. Okay, so if you define wetness in that way, there's still no reason for water not to be wet. Let's say you have an object, like a shirt, which is initially dry. When you add water, the shirt becomes wet. But if the shirt wasn't wet before and you claim that water isn't wet, how did the shirt become wet? Where did the wetness come from, if not from water? And eventually, after almost an hour of debate, we came to the conclusion that water is wet.
Cassy also used Google to look for some facts on water, and she found a site that basically says wetness is synonymous with "clinginess", which is a property caused by the presence of ions that interact readily with the environment. Since this person claims that water is made up only of neutral H2O molecules, it does not meet this requirement and is thus not wet because H2O molecules would prefer to interact with themselves rather than with their surroundings. First of all, water is NOT made up of entirely of H2O molecules; the dissociation of water into H+ and OH- is a spontaneous reaction, although it occurs at a low rate (0.0000001 moles per second, I think). So if the presence of ions is the only requirement for wetness, then water is wet. Secondly, even if water only had molecular H2O, it would still interact very readily with its environment. Water can interact with anything that can form hydrogen bonds; that's why water is the universal solvent. So I really don't understand what the writer of this article is trying to get at.
Even after Cassy and I finally decided to end the debate (we both had an 8 am class the following morning.. hehe oh well..), I was still thinking about the topic. I was wondering why some people don't think water is wet. Then I thought of an analogous example: salt (specifically, table salt). Can anyone say that salt isn't salty? I'll assume that no one has any doubts on the saltiness of salt. We say that something is salty when it contains salt, right? But this does not, in any way, detract from the saltiness of salt. So why does the definition that "something is wet when it contains water" cast doubt on the wetness of water? Maybe I just have some logic flaws or something, but I can't think of a reason why people would think that water isn't wet.
Anyway. Enough nerdiness. Today was the last day of classes before the exams. We don't have classes until Thursday next week, and the first exams will start on Friday. And then we'll finally be able to go home! :D If we survive the exams. *sigh* Oh well, there's no sense in worrying. In the words of the oh! so wise Cassandra: Bahala na.
I think I'm starting to get addicted to KoL. Does anyone know a good place to get Muscle points? My HP is pathetically low, so I'm not progressing as much as I should. Any help would be greatly appreciated :D
no subject
no subject
no subject
And diba, NaCl is only an example of salt and not all salts are salty in the NaCl sort of sense?
Augh I'm being suchanerd. Sorry, I had nothing but chem classes today >_
no subject
and yeah, some salts aren't salty. that's why i specified table salt.
don't worry. i'm far worse than you are :P
no subject
Ok, now you got me thinking if water really IS wet or what :|
no subject
no subject
Define "wet" though first, before I launch into my arguement xD
no subject
i define it as "the intrinsic property of fluids that enables them to cling to and interact with other surfaces without drastic changes in their molecular structure" while my friend defines it as "the characteristic of objects that have been exposed to water/fluids."
no subject
And omg I'm so dumb. Haha.
no subject
why are you dumb?
no subject
YES omg. If you think I was lazy before you should see me now.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
solid
hehe. pero nakatutuwang isipin yan ah. haha. kapag nakuwento mo yan kay sir vlad eh siguradong kasama na yan sa mga stories tulad ng sa halo-halong hinahalo tapos may isang Pisay na nagsabi "uy pare, colloidal disperssion" haha :P
arg. namiss ko tuloy yung Mg na tipong sina Martz, Juanchi at Zo ay pagdedebatihan yan :D
Godbless sa pag-aaral! :D