Stamets to People Twitter@sh.itjust.works • 2 months agoWhich got wrecked worse by Lake Superior? Tom Fitton or the Edmund Fitzgerald?lemmy.worldimagemessage-square210fedilinkarrow-up11.24Karrow-down124
arrow-up11.22Karrow-down1imageWhich got wrecked worse by Lake Superior? Tom Fitton or the Edmund Fitzgerald?lemmy.worldStamets to People Twitter@sh.itjust.works • 2 months agomessage-square210fedilink
minus-squareOwllinkfedilink10•2 months agoIf I have a single water molecule then it is still water but it isn’t touching any other water molecule, thus it isn’t wet
minus-square@Tattorack@lemmy.worldlinkfedilink10•2 months agoExactly. So the only instance water is dry, and thus not wet, is if it’s a single lonely molecule. But water tends to come in herds, so that basically never happens.
minus-square@chiliedogg@lemmy.worldlinkfedilink2•edit-22 months agoIs the polar-bonded surface layer of water wet? It is not entirely surrounded by water.
minus-square@Tattorack@lemmy.worldlinkfedilink1•2 months agoI’d say that’s dry, as it’s in contact with air. Or perhaps just moist, as it’s partially in contact with water.
minus-squareRobust Mirrorlinkfedilink4•2 months agoWell no one would consider something with a single water molecule on it wet either.
If I have a single water molecule then it is still water but it isn’t touching any other water molecule, thus it isn’t wet
Exactly. So the only instance water is dry, and thus not wet, is if it’s a single lonely molecule.
But water tends to come in herds, so that basically never happens.
Is the polar-bonded surface layer of water wet? It is not entirely surrounded by water.
I’d say that’s dry, as it’s in contact with air. Or perhaps just moist, as it’s partially in contact with water.
Well no one would consider something with a single water molecule on it wet either.
Yup, that further confirms what I said