Stamets to People [email protected] • 2 months agoWhich got wrecked worse by Lake Superior? Tom Fitton or the Edmund Fitzgerald?lemmy.worldimagemessage-square211fedilinkarrow-up11.2K
arrow-up11.2KimageWhich got wrecked worse by Lake Superior? Tom Fitton or the Edmund Fitzgerald?lemmy.worldStamets to People [email protected] • 2 months agomessage-square211fedilink
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@[email protected]linkfedilink11•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@[email protected]linkfedilink2•edit-22 months agoIs the polar-bonded surface layer of water wet? It is not entirely surrounded by water.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink1•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 Mirrorlinkfedilink6•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