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!
@lord_ibelieve
6 жыл бұрын
The Action Lab The whole topic drove me nuts lol keep it up! Btw, congrats on 1 million!🎈🎉🎈🎉
@ProPlayer-wq3nu
6 жыл бұрын
Ikr
@jjkk9273
6 жыл бұрын
The Action Lab ✌✌✌♠♠♠
@andie.y
6 жыл бұрын
100%pure water is not wet,it is pure
@visharadjoshi745
6 жыл бұрын
The Action Lab I have a QTS , we can't see air that means can fish see water?
@9salvia
6 жыл бұрын
1973: I bet they’ll have a cure for cancer in the future! 2018: *Is water wet??*
@pangasius6660
6 жыл бұрын
Lol
@jasminebiedler1998
6 жыл бұрын
Lol
@Treetops27
6 жыл бұрын
Hey, Vsauce! Micheal here
@samelsby3333
6 жыл бұрын
Olo
@fernandogreyleaf6456
6 жыл бұрын
camzz ahh but there now is
@capybaramorelikebarelycapa1601
5 жыл бұрын
My mom is wondering why I am yelling the word 'drenched' at my phone
@MrLroyjetson
5 жыл бұрын
Capybara More Like BarelyCapable On my soul I was saying drenched the whole time
@Trump-vx2ny
5 жыл бұрын
Same
@emers1n_
5 жыл бұрын
I was thinking saturated
@CaydeeBoy
5 жыл бұрын
Capybara More Like BarelyCapable same here
@keywoniaspencer
5 жыл бұрын
I was yelling drenched too 😂 I was mad he said dripping and sopping wet lmao
@letsgooo1637
Жыл бұрын
His wife : IM PISSED Him : let’s mesure how pissed you are
@rtscuycjkk
Жыл бұрын
Replace PISSED with WET
@mangotheneko4963
Жыл бұрын
No. Just. No.
@bu11seyeboy28
Жыл бұрын
@@mangotheneko4963 yes
@eklhaft4531
Жыл бұрын
@@rtscuycjkk That sounds very kinky.
@Mrqwerty2109
3 жыл бұрын
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.
@thebrokenmystic879
3 жыл бұрын
Nerd
@thebrokenmystic879
3 жыл бұрын
Just kidding
@pokette
3 жыл бұрын
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
@KurisutofaDK
3 жыл бұрын
@@pokette Okay.
@J-jizzy_
3 жыл бұрын
@@pokette alright.
@Daikkov
5 жыл бұрын
“Really dripping wet” BRO DRENCHED
@eugyy_
5 жыл бұрын
DilL’s channel Random stuff WATERLOGGED
@Daikkov
5 жыл бұрын
Eugy7 good one
@VyzerMusic
5 жыл бұрын
I was thinking the exact same thing lol, drenched
@Castodas
5 жыл бұрын
“Bro drenched” is kind of random, lol! XD
@pmadood6970
5 жыл бұрын
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
@BobMcCoy
6 жыл бұрын
*Next Video: **_Is Water Thicc?_*
@OPJuiceBox
6 жыл бұрын
yes
@ButtmanRises
6 жыл бұрын
_Bob McCoy no fuckinf way
@cosmicrefractions2834
6 жыл бұрын
_Bob McCoy I like that idea
@unbreathablegaming6353
6 жыл бұрын
That punch thicc, no
@jellyatelier
6 жыл бұрын
_Bob McCoy ?
@fearful5096
4 жыл бұрын
POV: You randomly searched "Is Water Wet?"
@TigransTips
4 жыл бұрын
YES
@fearful5096
4 жыл бұрын
@@TigransTips lol
@suraya_
3 жыл бұрын
yes
@unknownl7515
3 жыл бұрын
Yeahhhh yeahhhh you got me
@michaelangelo7087
3 жыл бұрын
bich Im in
@ocsicnarf666
3 жыл бұрын
To think this was 2 years ago, feels like a week ago
@zakokutesi2083
3 жыл бұрын
Cool pfp
@zakokutesi2083
3 жыл бұрын
change it back to hinata now
@harukii6347
Ай бұрын
Imagine how long ago it is now
@ftimmathew633
6 жыл бұрын
100 years later: 9th grade science textbook- The Wetness Theory (proposed by Action lab)
@TheActionLab
6 жыл бұрын
Lol!
@superspidey4275
6 жыл бұрын
Kek.
@ebbypetermathew9707
6 жыл бұрын
Hello
@kawaiis.1640
6 жыл бұрын
Test book naa hologram
@Blox117
6 жыл бұрын
the real reason water is wet is because it is sticky
@jacktbear5385
6 жыл бұрын
Lettuce is 95 percent water so lettuce is dripping wet 🤯
@ferdinandkraft857
6 жыл бұрын
Jacktbear - it should be called wettuce.
@peepinsleep409
6 жыл бұрын
Ferdinand Kraft lol
@pauhull
6 жыл бұрын
Burgur King foot lettuce
@skdv_
6 жыл бұрын
u blew ma mind
@alacastersoi8265
6 жыл бұрын
you just blew my mind
@troyvalencia
3 жыл бұрын
Next question: Is fire dry?
@hevnet
3 жыл бұрын
duh
@andykerass3695
3 жыл бұрын
It could have water vapour in it, giving it a 'percentage' of water and therefore a place on the wetness chart lol
@gamerxxgamer6723
3 жыл бұрын
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*
@sn8wball
3 жыл бұрын
@@gamerxxgamer6723 calm down jesus
@MarsStarcruiser
3 жыл бұрын
@@gamerxxgamer6723 Can we have wet fire then🤔
@Yellowroll
4 жыл бұрын
It’s not wet; water makes things wet. It’s like saying that fire is burnt
@meaalton225
4 жыл бұрын
Yes, Exactly!
@txr4032
5 жыл бұрын
I hear Laurel
@skullpirateg4433
5 жыл бұрын
LOOOOL
@oongabonga7739
5 жыл бұрын
Comenteer this is dead
@benjamincoakley9871
5 жыл бұрын
No it's blue and gold
@heller3762
5 жыл бұрын
Eveningbot I how do you hear yanny
@doitsunokagakuwasekaiichi4732
5 жыл бұрын
I bear yaurel/lanny/yannel
@hivekahuna1011
5 жыл бұрын
The real question is ... is fire on fire? Talk about the flat water-ers
@Dr.PaiPai
5 жыл бұрын
I bet you made this comment before finishing the video lol.
5 жыл бұрын
I guess fire is not on fire because fire is not a fuel... 𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗻𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄. 𝗜𝗳 𝗮𝗻𝘆𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗿/𝘄𝗼𝗼𝘀𝗵 𝗺𝗲 𝗶𝗺 𝗴𝗼𝗻𝗻𝗮 𝘀𝗻𝗮𝗽
@bigshow3038
4 жыл бұрын
😱😱😵
@Knottz
4 жыл бұрын
ah yes water is on water
@theendofit
4 жыл бұрын
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
@The_Tormented_One
3 жыл бұрын
When I fall in a pool: I am not wet. There are just some millions of water molecules that have sticked to me.
@Madmoe999
3 жыл бұрын
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.
@Ch3rryCanary
3 жыл бұрын
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.
@LevantWasTaken
3 жыл бұрын
he means more saturated. with water.
@Madmoe999
3 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@rubbish6980
3 жыл бұрын
@@Madmoe999 water molecules touch each other, so if more than 1 molecules of water touching each other than water is wet.
@goose7125
3 жыл бұрын
@@rubbish6980 air has water vapor in it, the air is not wet
@sunnysideplays8017
6 жыл бұрын
Is mayonasie an instrument
@capnittle8373
6 жыл бұрын
Sunnyside Playz that video should be next
@2jorden315
6 жыл бұрын
Sunnyside Playz no it a oofca
@SireSquish
6 жыл бұрын
Yes, but only if it's tuned correctly
@OfficialRetroPlayCast
5 жыл бұрын
*yes*
@brandonservis9791
5 жыл бұрын
*YES*
@hotbleach9916
6 жыл бұрын
Is oil wet? Because it doesn't mix with water so it's it dry or is it wet
@eugenestahl1944
6 жыл бұрын
Its a liquid it makes things wet
@eliblay9973
6 жыл бұрын
It makes thinks wet in a way but its not wet
@hotbleach9916
6 жыл бұрын
If it's not wet then what is it
@eliblay9973
6 жыл бұрын
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
@MrTwigged
6 жыл бұрын
Oil is greasy
@Owen_loves_Butters
4 жыл бұрын
Arguing that 100% water is not wet is like arguing that a convergent series would never reach 1.
@aw-nl7ri
4 жыл бұрын
10 minutes of my time wasted on this and he didn't even say "drenched" smh..
@venix2256
4 жыл бұрын
Aaram Williams Level 10 wetness : Minecraft Sponge in ocean
@suraya_
3 жыл бұрын
i was saying "drenched" to my screen and he didnt even say it smh
@13ttrNutSOK
3 жыл бұрын
So who gives two craps
@MansaMusa50
3 жыл бұрын
Dripping wet is the same as drenched.
@my3dviews
8 ай бұрын
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.
@nightshade5965
4 жыл бұрын
Is water wet?? Mean while gordon ramsay goes to a restaurant: *This water is dry*
@sariatora8287
4 жыл бұрын
Michaels 😂
@reyalexisjelly
4 жыл бұрын
Undercooked*
@shadytrizzy330
4 жыл бұрын
Must have gotten some air
@jadengillies4462
4 жыл бұрын
YOU BURNED THE WATER
@PhamNguyenHoangLong-cv6tk
4 жыл бұрын
@@jadengillies4462 the water turns into air if you burn it
@Cherryfish386
5 жыл бұрын
“I think we can all agree this is some pretty MOIST toilet paper”
@wrlixluna204
4 жыл бұрын
HB Arterbury get out. 😂😂
@tatteryt
4 жыл бұрын
Why do people dislike the word moist so much?
@momotheflyinglemur2330
4 жыл бұрын
TatterCat it sounds weird
@ronan.cul08
3 жыл бұрын
No stop
@clerencechung8185
3 жыл бұрын
What is so wrong about moist?
@maverickjac136
3 жыл бұрын
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.
@killptp1638
3 жыл бұрын
Thank you!! That was exactly what I was thinking.
@killptp1638
3 жыл бұрын
@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.
@sirbryce2548
3 жыл бұрын
Actually, water molecules touch eachother, so for water to not be wet, you'd need 1 molecule of water, therefore water is wet
@maverickjac136
3 жыл бұрын
@@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
@sirbryce2548
3 жыл бұрын
@@maverickjac136 yeah technically
@victorperearojas2525
3 жыл бұрын
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.
@huh7270
3 жыл бұрын
Each h20 molecule connects to each other making each molecule by your definition wet. Water is wet.
@bjrnadriansen348
3 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@ritakushwaha7306
3 жыл бұрын
Man just solved the cure for cancer
@jmauldagoat8470
3 жыл бұрын
If you read all of this you are a legend
@idococaine9425
3 жыл бұрын
@@bjrnadriansen348 so if u pour liquid water on ice only then water would be wet?
@notcool4314
5 жыл бұрын
No water is flat
@AetharWolf
5 жыл бұрын
Water isn't round Confirmed.
@Jotki
5 жыл бұрын
A grain of sand is round
@GoodNeutralEvilChaos
5 жыл бұрын
That what I said but my friend keeps saying you can get fizzy water.
@thatotherguy9211
5 жыл бұрын
TC FG oh...
@isla7591
5 жыл бұрын
*LIKE THE EARTH*
@sameersachan8427
5 жыл бұрын
1970: We will have flying cars in the future 2019: Is water wet?
Sameer Sachan 2019 also you and me and max took over the internet so I took mine off
@brandongonzalez_
5 жыл бұрын
For me I’m watching this in 2019
@noakberglund8150
5 жыл бұрын
Sameer Sachan really overused man
@reticuluminfirma9407
3 жыл бұрын
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.
@themaxlimelight3757
3 жыл бұрын
Ergo any water that you can physically see or interact with is wet
@dvilsadvocate1498
2 жыл бұрын
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.
@Prince-ir7rr
2 жыл бұрын
@@dvilsadvocate1498 That’s like saying the Flu is sick.
@dvilsadvocate1498
2 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@Prince-ir7rr
2 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@adamwigley9738
3 жыл бұрын
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.
@flacornmallrat
3 жыл бұрын
Dirt and dust is clean and water is dry?
@toshibatoshamara
3 жыл бұрын
But dirt IS dirty, and dust IS dusty
@royalcrowman9017
6 жыл бұрын
Is fire burnt then
@musti1665
6 жыл бұрын
Not unless you prove it , like this video.
@kylemilford8758
6 жыл бұрын
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
@shaunfinnasnap462
6 жыл бұрын
Kyle Milford yea but anything that can get sum wet is wet
@nicholasdrew91
6 жыл бұрын
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.
@nicholasdrew91
6 жыл бұрын
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.
@sebastianhernandez1228
6 жыл бұрын
Me: > I need to study for my midterms Also me: > watching: "is water wet?"
@nobell5006
6 жыл бұрын
Sebastian Hernandez I actually have final exams tomorrow
@Zelotsi
6 жыл бұрын
Sebastian Hernandez I have exams in 10 days
@blahcah6327
6 жыл бұрын
Sebastian Hernandez lol I should be reading on my finals
@stopfootage
6 жыл бұрын
Midterms, at the month May???wat
@sebastianhernandez1228
6 жыл бұрын
Stop Footage I live in south America m8
@thepaleone2369
3 жыл бұрын
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.
@ortherner
2 жыл бұрын
Ok kool but do you expect me to read all of that?
@DraakjeYoblama
2 жыл бұрын
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)
@trappedmoss
2 жыл бұрын
Oh gawd
@Agentfirestarter
2 жыл бұрын
I’m not gonna read all this lol
@luka188
2 жыл бұрын
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.
@Novaonyoutube432
3 жыл бұрын
Me: *clicks on video* My dad: son why is the FBI at our door?
@jotjot5437
6 жыл бұрын
I’ll save you some time. He said water was wet
@rafaelespinal5064
6 жыл бұрын
First Name Last Name lmao
@isabella-zg8vl
6 жыл бұрын
THANK YOU!
@dustythegaminglemon2946
6 жыл бұрын
Obviously
@taliajackson417
6 жыл бұрын
First Name Last Name thanks
@yeahoh2222
6 жыл бұрын
First Name Last Name kk
@cujoedaman
6 жыл бұрын
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?
@daved7861
6 жыл бұрын
Lol
@soldnanipogi5431
6 жыл бұрын
cujoedaman hahahahaha lol
@90LocsOnMyCrown
6 жыл бұрын
Who proved it to be round?
@aaronmackay6123
6 жыл бұрын
cujoedaman Maybe. Or maybe it is a whole other band of idiots.
@jeffystevens
6 жыл бұрын
RollinStrong (facepalm)
@matthewbergeron3641
3 жыл бұрын
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.
@midnighttoastie8012
2 жыл бұрын
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.
@FlatEarthKiller
Жыл бұрын
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.
@callmez55
Жыл бұрын
@@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
@invigor8986
Жыл бұрын
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
@invigor8986
Жыл бұрын
@@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
@alexanderbrady5486
3 жыл бұрын
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.
@naturesfrontier1745
3 жыл бұрын
exactly. If you touch something that's "wet", ur really just touching the water on it, meaning water is wet
@kazuyahyuga4337
2 жыл бұрын
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-
@issholland
2 жыл бұрын
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
@issholland
2 жыл бұрын
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?
@WH6FQE
5 жыл бұрын
My God, I can't believe I actually watched this whole thing.
@undertone3538
3 жыл бұрын
Thank you for supporting the channel
@WH6FQE
3 жыл бұрын
@@undertone3538 lol
@TheTransporter007
3 жыл бұрын
It's almost like this guy has proven that even idiots can get rich on KZitem. 😳😬
@WH6FQE
3 жыл бұрын
@@TheTransporter007 lol
@potustheprescient1
3 жыл бұрын
He literally created a strawman out of toilet paper....any debaters passing through can causal link this guy to death
@jalmighty6319
6 жыл бұрын
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.
@kendrell4854
6 жыл бұрын
No, it's a gas
@reetheturtle5295
6 жыл бұрын
Boiz your all wrong it’s a plasma
@Eric_1991
6 жыл бұрын
Stick your hand in it and tell us.
@ninjason9-759
6 жыл бұрын
Hello Goodbye yes?
@Khr0no
6 жыл бұрын
Pt. 2
@strechsanchez
3 жыл бұрын
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
@Shadow-nr4op
3 жыл бұрын
Water in itself is wet
@strechsanchez
3 жыл бұрын
@@Shadow-nr4op Nope
@restrokruc2688
3 жыл бұрын
@@Shadow-nr4op does water cover itself?
@Shadow-nr4op
3 жыл бұрын
@@restrokruc2688 if you imagine them in layers it does
@restrokruc2688
3 жыл бұрын
@@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
@Thetravelingmonke
3 жыл бұрын
“I’ve seen some pretty good arguments” *shows chaz smiths video of him just screaming*
@salehshaikh5880
6 жыл бұрын
Is water wet? What has this world become.
@Andy-413
6 жыл бұрын
That question's been around for thousands of years.
@novadoot
6 жыл бұрын
Let’s agree this is all stupid.
@domish4062
6 жыл бұрын
smart
@zevries5
6 жыл бұрын
GamerTopper Like or Dislike. It's a matter of philosophy. It is not all that stupid.
@ssjvo
6 жыл бұрын
I honestly hope thanos comes down and strikes the earth
@dixonbark
6 жыл бұрын
drenched is more than dripping wet id say
@icedink87
6 жыл бұрын
i was thinking the same thing. he forgot "drenched" and "soaked"
@talhozlin
6 жыл бұрын
Let alone flooded
@vari1535
6 жыл бұрын
I was triggered he didn’t say that
@sunnysea24
6 жыл бұрын
Saturated
@Lodek
4 жыл бұрын
If 'wet' is measured by the amount of water in an object, how could water be wet? Water cannot be within itself.
@adamrizky7658
4 жыл бұрын
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
@Lodek
4 жыл бұрын
@@adamrizky7658 That is a much more understanding way to put it.
@iso1664
3 жыл бұрын
So technically Water is NOT wet (pure) But all water on earth is wet
@EsOoBaCtvp
3 жыл бұрын
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.
@my3dviews
8 ай бұрын
@@EsOoBaCtvp Yes, exactly. His normal logic was out the window on this video.
@makatangpusit3050
6 жыл бұрын
Take a shot for every time he says wet.
@sora2740
6 жыл бұрын
I'm a kid...
@vinestick
6 жыл бұрын
Why’d you reply to his comment...
@dudleysquibbles6366
6 жыл бұрын
Jet Hay Why’d you reply to his reply...
@roma_gamer6070
6 жыл бұрын
@@dudleysquibbles6366 Why would you reply on his reply on his reply on his comment
@allisnpaige7398
6 жыл бұрын
RoMa _GaMer why did you reply to the reply to the reply on the comment?
@sniz03
6 жыл бұрын
Can water make water wet
@mrcalidonia7582
6 жыл бұрын
Wolfy Vlcak - you have to smack the water and tell it that it's been naughty.
@dustbitten
6 жыл бұрын
It’s illogical to think you can make something be what it already is.
@HyLion
6 жыл бұрын
Absolutely the frick not!
@leobenecke2566
6 жыл бұрын
The Gaming Lion It's a joke.
@lesliemartinez6427
6 жыл бұрын
Wolfy Vlcak 🤔😂
@pigman6954
2 жыл бұрын
i never understand why people seem to genuinely think water isn't wet
@FellVoice
Жыл бұрын
10 minutes and 24 seconds of my life I'll never get back...
@nerys71
6 жыл бұрын
I am not sure if I can agree with this. your extrapolation appears flawed by making an incorrect core assumption that your extrapolation is then based on. ie a logical flaw. Can oxygen burn? Ignoring same equals same (ie O2) to burn is combination with oxygen. so oxygen does not burn. IT DOES the burning when things "combine" with it. "wet" I think is similar. When you stick your hand in water your not touching something that is "wet" you are "becoming" wet by sticking your hand in the water. When you stick your hand in fire you are not "fire" you are being burned BY fire. I think the logical fallacy is that wet is a "thing" when it is not. wet is a "state of being" "an action taken upon" water or any other "liquid" is the source of this changed state of being this action taken upon. from that logical point of view (which could be as incorrect as I think yours logical pov might be) water is no more wet than oxygen can burn. water DOES the wetting. oxygen DOES the burning. your water with contaminants is not wet. the CONTAMINANTS are wet.
@catguy7520
6 жыл бұрын
Nerys my head hurts
@dylanmunoz7693
6 жыл бұрын
Nerys well said 👌👌
@ihassquidhatt5219
6 жыл бұрын
Te water is de wet
@ihassquidhatt5219
6 жыл бұрын
Also fire and wet are not the same fire dose NOT soak into objects water is always at the top of wet scale like fire is always on the top of the fire scale things can burn but they dont absorb the fire but thing absorb water and can hold water in side of them and if you realy think about it everyting is always wet because most things have even the tinest of moister and water is what makes things wet so water there for is wet so your analagys are invalid because you compare fire that burns things through heat if you heat anything hot enough even withought making fire it will burn water or wet nes wont come from tempatures is a liquid not a fire that is just something being burned from high temperatures
@ihassquidhatt5219
6 жыл бұрын
Also oxegen is just a componet to burning you would also meed heat and fuel mean while water dosent need anything else to wet things so water wetting is bye itself fire is a combination of many things so your analagy is like comparing a fuel source for fire as fire even though it dosent have the oxygen or the heat to Burn but water allone can make things wet thats why water is wet because nothing has to be added to water to make things WET so since water dosent combined with anything else to make this wet YOUR ANALAGYS ARE WRONG
@selfactualizer2099
3 жыл бұрын
water being wet depends on how we define something with our artificial vocabulary. for example, wetness could be considered a chemical reaction for double example, what happens if water touches something extremely hot? it evaporates, HOWEVER, what happens when really hot water touches something really cold? this is what we call a chemical reaction. therefore, water is or isnt wet depending on how we define wetness. which can change in different situations. the same goes for lava. also, fire IS burned or burnt. how can you have fire without a source? we may say its burning, but it is litterally a burnt fuel/source having as chemical reaction with oxygen. therefore it is burning while also being burnt. chemical reactions arent as simple as "it is" or "isnt"
@martonbalogh6021
3 жыл бұрын
1970: They will have flying cars in the future The future: IS WATER WET?
@lawanbrown16
5 жыл бұрын
Actually the question that destroyed my household was: Does a straw have 1 hole or two? lol
@TheActionLab
5 жыл бұрын
ha ha, I say one, but I can see why people would say two. I bet my wife would say two.
@mollysullivan2277
4 жыл бұрын
One
@pmj_studio4065
4 жыл бұрын
Watch Vsauce video "how many holes does a human have". That should answer all your questions and doubts about counting holes
@gxyrd
4 жыл бұрын
1. it goes all the way through
@hisensberg1450
4 жыл бұрын
1 hollow hole 😂
@7z7w
6 жыл бұрын
from "flat earth" to "is not water wet?"
@basaamqasem4718
5 жыл бұрын
I think the words your looking for sunken, drenched, drenched, dribbled, submerged, splashing, soggy, sopping. ,sauced, waterlogged, soapy, bubbly, rainy, showery
@7z7w
5 жыл бұрын
@@basaamqasem4718 Yep.
@ziecheese
5 жыл бұрын
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
@dudekejddjdj
3 жыл бұрын
I gained 99.5 brain cells from watching this vid
@13ttrNutSOK
3 жыл бұрын
1999: the future will be better 2021:is fire dry? is water wet?
@jelowo9877
6 жыл бұрын
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...
@TheActionLab
6 жыл бұрын
You are very correct...
@Onyin
6 жыл бұрын
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.
@Onyin
6 жыл бұрын
learn what wet means before writing a paragraph
@zebraking8174
6 жыл бұрын
Jeannie Zhao l
@Montalvodiving
6 жыл бұрын
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.
@MilkshakeDev
5 жыл бұрын
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!
@somxr_738
5 жыл бұрын
🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️ where’s drenched
@mariokpc7775
5 жыл бұрын
6.IS.DRENCHED.
@bbert-tk2eu
5 жыл бұрын
2,5 . MOIST
@mariokpc7775
5 жыл бұрын
Omg he changed it YESSSSSS THANK YOU
@pmadood6970
5 жыл бұрын
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.
@MrDanielUchiha
3 жыл бұрын
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.
@Tacos18
2 жыл бұрын
Bro just said that air is a liquid
@kryout5379
2 жыл бұрын
@@Tacos18 bro just thought he was smart water is a fluid and air is also a fluid just water is much denser
@Tacos18
2 жыл бұрын
@@kryout5379 bro just thought he was smart Air is a gas🤦♂️. How tf do you mess this up
@bleemwisspillow8686
2 жыл бұрын
@@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..."
@0DAYBROKER
2 жыл бұрын
@@Tacos18 bro just thought he was smart
@oofergoofer1029
3 жыл бұрын
He’s gonna regret wasting that toilet paper......
@tomcat3946
4 жыл бұрын
The word wet has been said so many times, I just can't. It sounds wrong now.
@Randomperson-zh4ek
4 жыл бұрын
*W E T*
@Hazzahead
3 жыл бұрын
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_satiation
@tormentedsunbeam
3 жыл бұрын
@@Hazzahead actually thanks for the info, I thought that the phenomenon was something more similar to Jean Paul Sartre’s “absurdity of the world”
@livinglifeleona
3 жыл бұрын
that's how i feel about the word 'dog.' sounds like some viking language word.
@ohurana2294
2 жыл бұрын
w E t 👹👹
@anthonylicari2439
6 жыл бұрын
100% water does not prove water is "wet". You're trying to take a colloquialism and make it scientific. Wet refers to some object having or absorbing water. Without an object there's nothing to make wet because wet refers to a state something is in. Water is a liquid. You can't make it more "watery" or less "watery" it's H20 every time. Water itself can't be "wet" because water can't be "dry". It's like saying "Is dirt dirty?" "That mud looks muddy" It's just mud and when you apply it to an object that makes it muddy. It's a colloquialism, not science.
@jigzmalakas6253
6 жыл бұрын
Anthony Licari you nailed it. You gave much more learning than this video 😂😂😂
@pencarikayu3551
6 жыл бұрын
yeah...its true...its damn true...
@rdizzy1
6 жыл бұрын
Water does infact make other water "wet" in the same way a sponge is wet when filled with water. The molecules of water surround other molecules of water.
@soniccookie655
6 жыл бұрын
Yeah but, there's water on your water.
@Rob-21
6 жыл бұрын
rdizzy1 except that water itself isn't an object, hence water covering water doesn't make it more or less wet?? You're saying 3L water for example is more wet than 1L of water..? Whut.
@hellcat553
2 жыл бұрын
"How moist are you" Water: *"Yes"*
@eatmyshortsloser
3 жыл бұрын
“Ok so I think we can all agree this is some moist toilet paper” I lost it lmao
@eatmyshortsloser
3 жыл бұрын
@The Harry Potter Blog its an interesting word
@eatmyshortsloser
3 жыл бұрын
@The Harry Potter Blog m o i s t
@eatmyshortsloser
3 жыл бұрын
@The Harry Potter Blog alright lol
@thanos5149
6 жыл бұрын
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
@JohnSmith-lt1ck
6 жыл бұрын
Thanos The Mental Titan
@superferret4487
6 жыл бұрын
It should be “is fire burnt”
@predzelbun2646
6 жыл бұрын
That's what I was thinking, Obviously fire is hot, it's is fire BURNT....
@memyselfandi2568
6 жыл бұрын
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.
@memyselfandi2568
6 жыл бұрын
With that being said, the fire may only exist when the burnt is happening
@argotanna8463
6 жыл бұрын
Is the past tense of YEET: Yeeted or Yote?
@rexarroz3012
6 жыл бұрын
YOOOO i always thought it was YEETED but i looked it up and it is YOTE
@aechronos403
6 жыл бұрын
Yote
@iam_gdm1388
6 жыл бұрын
What about yate because eat goes to ate?
@DanJD
6 жыл бұрын
It's "Walmart Yodeling kid"
@MVP11489
6 жыл бұрын
Yomato
@symmoneg
3 жыл бұрын
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)
@koifry35
3 жыл бұрын
the water wasn’t wet, your face was
@socialtwister207
3 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@Regu269
3 жыл бұрын
@@socialtwister207lmao. Yeah I'm sure you have the same credentials as the dude in the video
@socialtwister207
3 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@jerecakes1
3 жыл бұрын
amogus also you can make dry (hydrophobic) water
@TheActualNobody
3 жыл бұрын
This doesn't prove that water is wet at all. This just proves that anything in water becomes wet which we already know.
@Pinakiprime910
3 жыл бұрын
What is wetness
@tacoexpressSEEDEEholeeveryones
3 жыл бұрын
@@Pinakiprime910 covered in water
@Pinakiprime910
3 жыл бұрын
@@tacoexpressSEEDEEholeeveryones so is water molecules not covered with other water molecules?
@tacoexpressSEEDEEholeeveryones
3 жыл бұрын
no. molecules are connected, the molecules water (makes) things wet.
@Pinakiprime910
3 жыл бұрын
@@tacoexpressSEEDEEholeeveryones that is wrong water molecules are only connected upto to h20 a group of h20 and by that a huge groupp surrounding each other makes visible water
@Art5ty
6 жыл бұрын
Really dripping wet? What about drenched? That made me triggered.
@petertm4188
6 жыл бұрын
When you play too much dayz
@hughjass2075
6 жыл бұрын
I was screaming “drenched”
@AlyssaBrown117
6 жыл бұрын
SAME
@BigE0010
6 жыл бұрын
When he said really really dripping wet...I said bath lol
@squeakyproductions3055
6 жыл бұрын
It aggravated me that he didn't say drenched or even soaked...
@briannakenan9561
6 жыл бұрын
Is water wet🤔 It just ain’t dry
@Keziah2447178
6 жыл бұрын
Bria Khalifa 😂
@simoo6674
6 жыл бұрын
WATER IS NOT WET WHEN A DRY OBJECT GETS WATER IN IT ITS WET BUT IF YOU WATER ON WATER NOTHING
@a.southida
6 жыл бұрын
ZanFlix X Did you copy and paste? I saw you post the same reply on someone else’s comment, lol
@simoo6674
6 жыл бұрын
Abby Southida no I just copy it from a video
@thanos5149
6 жыл бұрын
ZanFlix X: BUT IF YOU WATER ON WATER NOTHING me: *"congrats, you're a Absolute Genius"*
@WestonNey
3 жыл бұрын
I just watched a man get toilet paper wet on KZitem...
@TheRuffLifeWithBrody
3 жыл бұрын
Yes!! WATER IS WET!! Thank you!!
@EsOoBaCtvp
3 жыл бұрын
He still didn't prove water is wet. All he did was show there are substances in the water that are wet from the water, but water being the substance that causes the wetness is itself not wet because the water is itself so it cannot be of another substance.
@tacoexpressSEEDEEholeeveryones
3 жыл бұрын
false
@Hayden_Cat
6 жыл бұрын
*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.
@TheFinalJedi478
6 жыл бұрын
Hannah Cat but the atoms repel each other anyway so water is not wet
@Gabriel-xp8nh
6 жыл бұрын
TheFinalJedi 478 so you're saying that nothing can get wet
@MthaMenMon
6 жыл бұрын
Quantum level: Yes, you're totally right
@amonguslover7043
6 жыл бұрын
TheFinalJedi 478 water cannot be dry
@mrghost4575
6 жыл бұрын
Hannah Cat I agree with you on that
@pekkause
6 жыл бұрын
Water cant be mixed with water to be something different than water
@nullmoore9943
6 жыл бұрын
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.
@notethanstone2465
6 жыл бұрын
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.
@RedDawn430
6 жыл бұрын
water in a glass does not saturate itself, it IS itself.
@nullmoore9943
6 жыл бұрын
Not Ethan Stone How so? “Any liquid” includes water. Therefore my statement was actually right.
@lostsouls1919
6 жыл бұрын
Water can't make water wet cuz it's the same substance
@logandemar8208
2 жыл бұрын
Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. He’s coming back, and He loves you.❤️
@Interested-gh9tv
5 ай бұрын
Jesus is King❤✝️.Jesus is God.
@pyrosfuel
3 ай бұрын
Not the time nor the place for an ignorant religious comment.
@ironreaver1543
3 жыл бұрын
Well, you just defined wet as being saturated in water, so regardless of the exorcise you've done to provide a graph, this hinges on something being inside the water and saturated or covered in water in some way. My argument is that water can't be saturated in itself at it's barest terms without accounting for the things typically in water because those are often counted as the water itself. Water can't saturate or coat itself, so water isn't wet, but it can saturate or coat other things, so water makes things wet.
@Nate-bn5kk
3 жыл бұрын
If you look at the molecular level, water molecules never touch each other. No molecules ever touch each other period, so nothing is ever wet.
@RJ4002
3 жыл бұрын
But why can't water saturate itself? By the definition of "saturate", to saturate is to cause (something) to become thoroughly soaked with liquid so that no more can be absorbed. I would argue that water is thoroughly soaked with liquid, therefore it is saturated with itself.
@demobear6746
6 жыл бұрын
my mind too dirty for this vid
@smarphpharph5021
5 жыл бұрын
Thought about vagine the whole time he was explaining the scale of wetness tbh
@demobear6746
5 жыл бұрын
@@smarphpharph5021 how old are you?
@smarphpharph5021
5 жыл бұрын
@@demobear6746 lmao old enough
@TennessineGD
5 жыл бұрын
well if your mind is made out of dirt, it can't be dirty
@getshittedonkid9672
5 жыл бұрын
Clean it with wet water
@exoticbomber137
6 жыл бұрын
7:20 And then... pour the swimming pool... into the ocean..? 🤔
@rngtic3719
6 жыл бұрын
😂😂😂
@Phantom-bh5ru
6 жыл бұрын
There are things called inflatable swimming pools
@SuperT
6 жыл бұрын
Well, the water from it
@blackflashp.rna2085
6 жыл бұрын
Or you can take a normal size pool and measure the distance and then put that water into the ocean.
@jackvenus4024
2 жыл бұрын
Is water flat?
@LOLWHATBRO
2 жыл бұрын
"is water wet?" is like asking "is meat covered in meat?"
@Quex133
6 жыл бұрын
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"
@fischX
6 жыл бұрын
Whats about piss moist toilet paper?
@Gary4DLC
6 жыл бұрын
😂😂😂🤣🤣
@overdadeirojervoso
6 жыл бұрын
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
@imsyed5
6 жыл бұрын
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?
@neurofiedyamato8763
6 жыл бұрын
I see a lot of people hate the word moist... I don't get it.
@breakingaustin
6 жыл бұрын
5:36 Drenched?? 5:59 Drowned??
@HakatimeRugby
6 жыл бұрын
The Last Knight haha.... lets go with RDW and RRDW instead.
@TeamKillerCody
6 жыл бұрын
I would have preferred submerged
@NapanPhuphathanaphong
6 жыл бұрын
nice
@jacobdudzik1307
6 жыл бұрын
Engorged
@thevioletskull8158
4 жыл бұрын
Everyone ask is water wet but none asks if water is dry- Oh wait this guy technically made dry water,nevermind.
@griffixd2035
3 жыл бұрын
This is the type of experiment your science teacher tells you to put saefty glasses on at
@CrumpetCraig
5 жыл бұрын
2018: Is water wet? 2019: Is water water?
@tenzingyozer8867
4 жыл бұрын
2020: why is water?
@CrumpetCraig
4 жыл бұрын
@@tenzingyozer8867 2021: How does water feel?
@physicsisawesome696
4 жыл бұрын
What is water?
@nathan8911
4 жыл бұрын
@@CrumpetCraig 2022 is gas water?
@ssentongojoshua327
4 жыл бұрын
2022: is wet water
@benjamintincher22
5 жыл бұрын
Why didn't he say "drenched" as one of the levels of wet
@sephirapple7317
Жыл бұрын
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!
@simonradev43
3 жыл бұрын
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.
@Pokemonmaster32925
6 жыл бұрын
Was anyone else freaking out because he wouldn’t say drenched throughout the whole video?
@poopthepoop6355
6 жыл бұрын
Nicothewerewolf YES
@user-gr2wy8no3v
5 жыл бұрын
You’re basically saying paper towels can get wet... NOT WATER
@zechrom3628
5 жыл бұрын
Guess what....because water is already wet👍
@XMisFitBoyX
5 жыл бұрын
Water isn’t wet
@kaijuplayz2199
5 жыл бұрын
Seriously though isn’t anything past soaked just excess water, like dripping wet just means the water falling off is not part of the wet system
@kaijuplayz2199
5 жыл бұрын
Only solids can get wet because only they can have the water coat it’s exterior, or outside of the solids molecules.
@houdasghir4556
5 жыл бұрын
he basically used the toilet paper to demonstrate that the more water there is the more wet the system is and when there's 100% water (only water and nothing else) that's when it's really really wet. And that's why water is wet haha
@karmarising144
Жыл бұрын
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.
@MG-yg3fn
2 жыл бұрын
You've convinced me that water is not wet. Being wet is reaching 100% saturation. Any added water after that does not increase the wetness of the system, as in, the ocean in not more wet than a lake. Therefore the water added is not wet or wetness would have increased.
@usernameundefined123
2 жыл бұрын
You convince me humanity is doomed lmao
@dothemario44
6 жыл бұрын
0:27 send this to your crush without context
@bassdrumflextime1253
6 жыл бұрын
sfraens S lol
@chicagos.pop.princess
6 жыл бұрын
I'm confused
@pianogeekdan4621
6 жыл бұрын
Lol why
@kanekiseisshu5294
6 жыл бұрын
Straight up the banging lol
@montadoorshammeer9266
6 жыл бұрын
Lol
@Obaa.mp4
5 жыл бұрын
By this explanation the water itself isn’t wet, but rather the (small) amount the other substance thats in it
@tairey2695
5 жыл бұрын
agreed .
@notjoseph1075
5 жыл бұрын
You're actually smart
@JoCE2305
5 жыл бұрын
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
@jadandowning
5 жыл бұрын
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
@korosensei4384
5 жыл бұрын
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.
@JackCabrero
Жыл бұрын
So, H2O is 100% pure water, therefore is not wet.
@nickwitdastick3573
2 жыл бұрын
I know I’m late but here’s the thing… wetness describes something submerged in water. So can you submerge water in water? No (at least not without considering hydrophobic substances) because the water will combine not submerge if that makes sense. For ex. You cannot burn a fire… you can burn things to make fire but the fire itself is not burnable. You can use water to wet things but the water itself is not wet. Even in the example you gave the toilet paper was wet… not the water. The minerals inside tap water are wet(submerged in water) not the water itself. But I’m not a scientist that’s just how my brain always processed it I could be wrong but at least this concept makes sense. Nice video tho
@freakystar2718
6 жыл бұрын
Ah! Why do I keep ending up on this channel?!?!
@bigcarpetflour3572
6 жыл бұрын
FreakyStar9119 Gamer why not
@patmixx
6 жыл бұрын
Lol same
@scottsimpson5398
6 жыл бұрын
because you keep watching the videos he produces
@faisalnasir4668
6 жыл бұрын
same
@dadegustavson7518
6 жыл бұрын
Same
@208xj
6 жыл бұрын
Count how many times he says "wet" In this video
@dogememes5853
6 жыл бұрын
0.49
@szebruh1343
6 жыл бұрын
It’s a drinking game
@dotlooy
6 жыл бұрын
3,539,251,593,672,711,103.09 times
@NatMG
6 жыл бұрын
23.0001019201
@bucklyopotato605
6 жыл бұрын
fireflameej a couple of times.
@Galaxy083
2 жыл бұрын
I'm a little late for the party. Asking "is water wet?" is the same as asking "is money rich?". Thank you for coming to my Ted talk.
@procrastinathor4594
2 жыл бұрын
When you arived on "wet" in the list at the beggining and asked what the next step would be, I was like: *water*
Пікірлер: 12 М.