A Question to ponder

Do explain your reasoning below. Let the games begin!

This is like the question "is a glass full or empty if it's underwater?" The answer to that is empty because with the same medium (water) inside the glass and outside, it cannot be considered full. (do you consider a glass sitting on a table full, because it has air inside and air outside? No)
However, the reasoning flips in the above question. If you can be considered "dry" while surrounded with air, you can also be considered "wet" while surrounded with water.
Voted "Yes"

Wet means having water on your body so... yes

Nice failed attempt at ambiguity :p

Well you can never truly be wet....unless your a chick...

Napisano przez 1GodofWar1, 16.06.2016 at 05:44

Well you can never truly be wet....unless your a chick...

I would disagree, you can never truly be wet. As said in statements above, you are wet because there is water on your body, but(!) the water never touches your body!! In fact, the electrons of the water are merely touching the electrons of your body and never truly touch you #Mind=Blown#IKnow

Napisano przez Dereny, 16.06.2016 at 11:29

I would disagree, you can never truly be wet. As said in statements above, you are wet because there is water on your body, but(!) the water never touches your body!! In fact, the electrons of the water are merely touching the electrons of your body and never truly touch you #Mind=Blown#IKnow

Get outta here

Napisano przez Dereny, 16.06.2016 at 11:29

I would disagree, you can never truly be wet. As said in statements above, you are wet because there is water on your body, but(!) the water never touches your body!! In fact, the electrons of the water are merely touching the electrons of your body and never truly touch you #Mind=Blown#IKnow

Technically the electrons are never touching each other, the negative electric fields generated by the electrons are simply repelling each other. In fact an electron can never really "touch" anything as it never has a defined position, just a probability distribution of where the electron might be.

In addition I disagree with your argument against someone being wet, as if valid it invalidates any use of the word wet and therefore by extension every word in the english language that describes contact between two differing bodies, therefore it seems silly to define wet in this manner.

Napisano przez EndsOfInvention, 16.06.2016 at 12:59

Napisano przez Dereny, 16.06.2016 at 11:29

I would disagree, you can never truly be wet. As said in statements above, you are wet because there is water on your body, but(!) the water never touches your body!! In fact, the electrons of the water are merely touching the electrons of your body and never truly touch you #Mind=Blown#IKnow

Technically the electrons are never touching each other, the negative electric fields generated by the electrons are simply repelling each other. In fact an electron can never really "touch" anything as it never has a defined position, just a probability distribution of where the electron might be.

In addition I disagree with your argument against someone being wet, as if valid it invalidates any use of the word wet and therefore by extension every word in the english language that describes contact between two differing bodies, therefore it seems silly to define wet in this manner.

Agreed with the first part; disagree with the second. #ChemOP

Napisano przez EndsOfInvention, 16.06.2016 at 12:59

Napisano przez Dereny, 16.06.2016 at 11:29

I would disagree, you can never truly be wet. As said in statements above, you are wet because there is water on your body, but(!) the water never touches your body!! In fact, the electrons of the water are merely touching the electrons of your body and never truly touch you #Mind=Blown#IKnow

Technically the electrons are never touching each other, the negative electric fields generated by the electrons are simply repelling each other. In fact an electron can never really "touch" anything as it never has a defined position, just a probability distribution of where the electron might be.

In addition I disagree with your argument against someone being wet, as if valid it invalidates any use of the word wet and therefore by extension every word in the english language that describes contact between two differing bodies, therefore it seems silly to define wet in this manner.

As an official chemist, I must admit I've just fell in love with you... Chemistry op!

Btw, an electron could actually touch something in theory because, even if it doesn't have a defined position, in reality, it actually has one, but it can't be calculated precisely. It also has a mass so... if two things have mass, they could theoretically touch in between.

The thing is that in nature it never touches anything. It's away from the nucleus of the atom (atomic or molecular orbitals) and it is repeled by other electrons as you just said, so poor electrons live in semi-loneliness. I'd say the only moment in which it could actually touch something (and I'm speculating here) is during the fusion of two atoms since these atoms are very energetic. But who knows.... maybe I just speculated too much

Napisano przez RaulPB, 16.06.2016 at 19:49

Napisano przez EndsOfInvention, 16.06.2016 at 12:59

Napisano przez Dereny, 16.06.2016 at 11:29

I would disagree, you can never truly be wet. As said in statements above, you are wet because there is water on your body, but(!) the water never touches your body!! In fact, the electrons of the water are merely touching the electrons of your body and never truly touch you #Mind=Blown#IKnow

Technically the electrons are never touching each other, the negative electric fields generated by the electrons are simply repelling each other. In fact an electron can never really "touch" anything as it never has a defined position, just a probability distribution of where the electron might be.

In addition I disagree with your argument against someone being wet, as if valid it invalidates any use of the word wet and therefore by extension every word in the english language that describes contact between two differing bodies, therefore it seems silly to define wet in this manner.

As an official chemist, I must admit I've just fell in love with you... Chemistry op!

Btw, an electron could actually touch something in theory because, even if it doesn't have a defined position, in reality, it actually has one, but it can't be calculated precisely. It also has a mass so... if two things have mass, they could theoretically touch in between.

The thing is that in nature it never touches anything. It's away from the nucleus of the atom (atomic or molecular orbitals) and it is repeled by other electrons as you just said, so poor electrons live in semi-loneliness. I'd say the only moment in which it could actually touch something (and I'm speculating here) is during the fusion of two atoms since these atoms are very energetic. But who knows.... maybe I just speculated too much

I was always under the impression that the electrons in fusion would be ripped away from the nucleus before it actually happened D:

#ILoveChemsitryToo#I'mMinoringInItForCollegeNextYear ^_^

Napisano przez Dereny, 16.06.2016 at 11:29

I would disagree, you can never truly be wet. As said in statements above, you are wet because there is water on your body, but(!) the water never touches your body!! In fact, the electrons of the water are merely touching the electrons of your body and never truly touch you #Mind=Blown#IKnow

By that logic, all the molecules that make up our body aren't actually touching....
Wait it actually makes a twisted kind of sense.

gg
Time to check myself into a psychiatric ward

Learn how to quote

Napisano przez Guest, 17.06.2016 at 00:47

Learn how to quote

Get outta here

Napisano przez Dereny, 16.06.2016 at 22:22

I was always under the impression that the electrons in fusion would be ripped away from the nucleus before it actually happened D:

#ILoveChemsitryToo#I'mMinoringInItForCollegeNextYear ^_^

Pls develop that because I'm not quite sure what do you exactly mean... I imagine you're saying that electrones during atomic fusion are simply thrown away into space or something weird XD

Napisano przez Darth., 17.06.2016 at 00:43

By that logic, all the molecules that make up our body aren't actually touching....
Wait it actually makes a twisted kind of sense.

gg
Time to check myself into a psychiatric ward

Nope, no molecules are touching in between, never. Actually, no atom is touching in between, not even those in the same molecule, they simply share some electrones as if any of us shared a beer with a friend XD Molecules and atom nucleus are a few armstrongs away from each other

You may be wet, but what you feel on your skin is not water touching you since it is always at least 1 armstrong away from you mwahaha anyway, you could say that we are always wet since we are full of water ourselves

Napisano przez Darth., 17.06.2016 at 00:43

Napisano przez Dereny, 16.06.2016 at 11:29

I would disagree, you can never truly be wet. As said in statements above, you are wet because there is water on your body, but(!) the water never touches your body!! In fact, the electrons of the water are merely touching the electrons of your body and never truly touch you #Mind=Blown#IKnow

By that logic, all the molecules that make up our body aren't actually touching....
Wait it actually makes a twisted kind of sense.

gg
Time to check myself into a psychiatric ward

i recall something along the lines that the distance in between each of the electrons in the atom making up the body mean's that humans are made up of 99.99996% of nothing at all but empty space. "give or take a nine after the decimal"

and about 70 % of what left is water. so really when you think about it your always wet and not wet all at the same time.

Cytuj:

Napisano przez RaulPB, 17.06.2016 at 07:04

Pls develop that because I'm not quite sure what do you exactly mean... I imagine you're saying that electrones during atomic fusion are simply thrown away into space or something weird XD

I think I am thinking strictly of hydrogen fusion, but if I remember correctly, the electrons are forced out of the atom(s) into space; it has been awhile since i learned about this so I may be wrong

Napisano przez RaulPB, 17.06.2016 at 07:06

You may be wet, but what you feel on your skin is not water touching you since it is always at least 1 armstrong away from you mwahaha anyway, you could say that we are always wet since we are full of water ourselves

we couldnt feel "wet" or at water anyway, since humans simply dont have that capability. We dont have the sense for feeling water, we just "feel" water by the change in the temperature, amirite?

Napisano przez Khal.eesi, 18.06.2016 at 05:09

Napisano przez RaulPB, 17.06.2016 at 07:06

You may be wet, but what you feel on your skin is not water touching you since it is always at least 1 armstrong away from you mwahaha anyway, you could say that we are always wet since we are full of water ourselves

we couldnt feel "wet" or at water anyway, since humans simply dont have that capability. We dont have the sense for feeling water, we just "feel" water by the change in the temperature, amirite?

No

Napisano przez Khal.eesi, 18.06.2016 at 05:09

we couldnt feel "wet" or at water anyway, since humans simply dont have that capability. We dont have the sense for feeling water, we just "feel" water by the change in the temperature, amirite?

Omfg, pls, marry me again!! You're super right khal!
Btw, you may also feel you are in water due to the viscosity of it and the difficulty of moving throught it

Napisano przez Dereny, 17.06.2016 at 11:17

I think I am thinking strictly of hydrogen fusion, but if I remember correctly, the electrons are forced out of the atom(s) into space; it has been awhile since i learned about this so I may be wrong

Well, for starters, fusion can happen between any atom theoretically. You'd only need enough energy. But I don't see the logic in your thoughts. Why would the electrons be sent away when they need to become part of the new atom?

Napisano przez RaulPB, 18.06.2016 at 10:32

Napisano przez Dereny, 17.06.2016 at 11:17

I think I am thinking strictly of hydrogen fusion, but if I remember correctly, the electrons are forced out of the atom(s) into space; it has been awhile since i learned about this so I may be wrong

Well, for starters, fusion can happen between any atom theoretically. You'd only need enough energy. But I don't see the logic in your thoughts. Why would the electrons be sent away when they need to become part of the new atom?

Electrons thrown away is radiation. Beta radiation to be precise.

Cytuj:

Beta particles are high-energy, high-speed electrons

Napisano przez RaulPB, 18.06.2016 at 10:32

Napisano przez Dereny, 17.06.2016 at 11:17

I think I am thinking strictly of hydrogen fusion, but if I remember correctly, the electrons are forced out of the atom(s) into space; it has been awhile since i learned about this so I may be wrong

Well, for starters, fusion can happen between any atom theoretically. You'd only need enough energy. But I don't see the logic in your thoughts. Why would the electrons be sent away when they need to become part of the new atom?

I know fusion can occur with any atom :3 I'm just remembering when I was learning something on hydrogen fusion a year ago so a lot has faded from emmory. I think what Darth said about radiation is what I must be remembering

Napisano przez Darth., 18.06.2016 at 11:39

Electrons thrown away is radiation. Beta radiation to be precise.

Cytuj:

Beta particles are high-energy, high-speed electrons

Napisano przez Dereny, 19.06.2016 at 01:24

I know fusion can occur with any atom :3 I'm just remembering when I was learning something on hydrogen fusion a year ago so a lot has faded from emmory. I think what Darth said about radiation is what I must be remembering

It is possible for atom fusion to emit certain radiation (positrons or neutrinos when forming a neutron from a proton, for example, and photons when that positron meets with an electron). In this case, you'll rarely see an ion be formed from a fusion process. Usually, you will obtain a neutral atom, thus losing an electron is quite akward if you ask me.

Napisano przez RaulPB, 19.06.2016 at 16:21

Napisano przez Darth., 18.06.2016 at 11:39

Electrons thrown away is radiation. Beta radiation to be precise.

Cytuj:

Beta particles are high-energy, high-speed electrons

Napisano przez Dereny, 19.06.2016 at 01:24

I know fusion can occur with any atom :3 I'm just remembering when I was learning something on hydrogen fusion a year ago so a lot has faded from emmory. I think what Darth said about radiation is what I must be remembering

It is possible for atom fusion to emit certain radiation (positrons or neutrinos when forming a neutron from a proton, for example, and photons when that positron meets with an electron). In this case, you'll rarely see an ion be formed from a fusion process. Usually, you will obtain a neutral atom, thus losing an electron is quite akward if you ask me.

I thought atom fusion emitted excess energy in the form of gamma radiation?

Napisano przez 5th SS Wiking, 19.06.2016 at 18:21

I thought atom fusion emitted excess energy in the form of gamma radiation?

gamma radiation = photons

And not necesarily always. This is a particular case, the most usual in stars.

Napisano przez RaulPB, 19.06.2016 at 16:21

It is possible for atom fusion to emit certain radiation (positrons or neutrinos when forming a neutron from a proton, for example, and photons when that positron meets with an electron). In this case, you'll rarely see an ion be formed from a fusion process. Usually, you will obtain a neutral atom, thus losing an electron is quite akward if you ask me.

Ay dios mio I give up

Napisano przez RaulPB, 19.06.2016 at 16:21

losing an electron is quite akward if you ask me.

2 hydrogen atoms walk into a bar.
One of them says "Quick! Help me. I've lost my electron"
The second one says "Are you sure?"
The first one replies "Yes I'm positive"