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!

1973: I bet they’ll have a cure for cancer in the future! 2018: *Is water wet??*

My mom is wondering why I am yelling the word 'drenched' at my phone

His wife : IM PISSED Him : let’s mesure how pissed you are

POV: You randomly searched "Is Water Wet?"

“Really dripping wet” BRO DRENCHED

*Next Video: **_Is Water Thicc?_*

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.

Next question: Is fire dry?

The real question is ... is fire on fire? Talk about the flat water-ers

“I think we can all agree this is some pretty MOIST toilet paper”

To think this was 2 years ago, feels like a week ago

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.

100 years later: 9th grade science textbook- The Wetness Theory (proposed by Action lab)

Is water wet?? Mean while gordon ramsay goes to a restaurant: *This water is dry*

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.

When I fall in a pool: I am not wet. There are just some millions of water molecules that have sticked to me.

Lettuce is 95 percent water so lettuce is dripping wet 🤯

1970: We will have flying cars in the future 2019: Is water wet?

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.

10 minutes of my time wasted on this and he didn't even say "drenched" smh..

Is oil wet? Because it doesn't mix with water so it's it dry or is it wet

Me: > I need to study for my midterms Also me: > watching: "is water wet?"

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.

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.

No water is flat

I hear Laurel

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.

Me: *clicks on video* My dad: son why is the FBI at our door?

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?

Is mayonasie an instrument

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.

1970: They will have flying cars in the future The future: IS WATER WET?

Is water wet? What has this world become.

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.

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.

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!

I’ll save you some time. He said water was wet

Is fire burnt then

“Ok so I think we can all agree this is some moist toilet paper” I lost it lmao

I well and truly enjoyed this episode - thank you!

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

Love your channel keep up the brilliant work! However, alcohol can be absorbed by tissue paper so it alcohol wet? Syrup can be absorbed by paper, is syrup wet. Surely definition of wet is the ability of a substance it hold onto say water without molecular bonding. Therefore is water wet? It does contain impurity’s that often dissolve....no idea!

the action lab saying "moist" is the best thing ever and my life is completed

My God, I can't believe I actually watched this whole thing.

Take a shot for every time he says wet.

Great video! Can you try to figure out if the sun is actually hot?

“I’ve seen some pretty good arguments” *shows chaz smiths video of him just screaming*

Actually the question that destroyed my household was: Does a straw have 1 hole or two? lol

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!

This made me think of a question,is dry ice wet or dry?

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.

drenched is more than dripping wet id say

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...

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"

this reminds me about that time in second grade when i wrote “the blue, wet water” when we were writing descriptions the teacher told me to change it when they saw it.

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.

from "flat earth" to "is not water wet?"

This is the type of experiment your science teacher tells you to put saefty glasses on at

So what if you put a object into a body of water lake/ocean does that go past the scale and can therefore be not wet anymore?

The word wet has been said so many times, I just can't. It sounds wrong now.

Really dripping wet? What about drenched? That made me triggered.

I think the question in terms of will the liquid called water make my hands "wet" as in will it stay on my skin for a prolonged period of time after removing my hand from the liquid. Think of it as the way that mercury is considered a dry liquid and gallium is considered a wet liquid.

Everyone ask is water wet but none asks if water is dry- Oh wait this guy technically made dry water,nevermind.

Is the past tense of YEET: Yeeted or Yote?

Can water make water wet

*Is dryness dry?*

7:25 "and then you can pour the swimming pool in the ocean" ahhh now I know why there is garbage in the ocean XD

Is water wet🤔 It just ain’t dry

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.

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.

What do you call it when there is oil instead of water?

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"

You’re basically saying paper towels can get wet... NOT WATER

I have another question alot of people have been arguing about lately and it's does a straw have 2 holes? I believe myself that it is 1 hole because if you take a tube and stab a whole from 1 side to the other it is 1 whole while others think that its a hole when its shallow and doesn't have an exit while the moment it penetrates the other side you now have 2 holes 1 on each side of said object even though with a piece of paper its very thin stab a hole in it is that 1 hole or 2 holes? You can flip it over and say oh there is another hole but in all reality 1 stab made 1 hole not 2.

1999: the future will be better 2021:is fire dry? is water wet?

I’m 75% water but I’m not wet Hmmmm I wonder.. If I poke a whole in my skin could I drink all the water out of me? Would I be a raisin!? Omg I’m going to do it now Ouch I CAN SEE NO WATER

Your graph will never quite reach 100%. Some percentage of the system will always be some object that you're describing as being wet. So since it will never reach 100% you cant put water itself on the same graph. Thatd be like me eating my weight is carrots. 100lbs of me + 100lbs of carrots. I'm now 50% carrot. But no matter how many carrots I eat I will never be 100% carrot and therefore cant call myself a carrot. Likewise you cant say 100% water is wet because once you remove the object you're adding water to it changes the system you're describing.

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)

An asymptote means that the line never reaches there, does that mean 100% water is impossible to be wet?

0:27 send this to your crush without context

7:20 And then... pour the swimming pool... into the ocean..? 🤔

i never understand why people seem to genuinely think water isn't wet

But if it’s submerged under water how do you know it’s actually wet until it hits air?

Why didn't he say "drenched" as one of the levels of wet

my mind too dirty for this vid

when he calls drenched really dripping wet lol XD

Is that graph log scaled?

I don’t think this is how science works...

Was anyone else freaking out because he wouldn’t say drenched throughout the whole video?

So technically Water is NOT wet (pure) But all water on earth is wet

Wow... talk about making a person think ! Incredible idea. Thanks.

Water cant be mixed with water to be something different than water

By this explanation the water itself isn’t wet, but rather the (small) amount the other substance thats in it

Hello, master of physics and fantasy here. Action Lab, will you please make a video on why 0! ought not to be a valid computation?

then why is it when you pour water on hands it leaves a dry spot???

"There's not really a word for it so I am going to call it really dripping wet" Homie it's soaked, it's drenched, it's soggy... maybe even sopping. It's Sauced, it's waterlogged, it's f'n WET.

2018: Is water wet? 2019: Is water water?

(definition section, 0:25 - 1:40): how did you come up with these and are they grounded ? Like are they tested, and how can somthing become "more wet" if it is wet ? Somthing can not become more dry if it is dry ... right ? (dry vs wet section 1:41 -2:45): was your toilet paper dried ? most things diffined by [dry] have been dryed in an oven or with a drying agent ... [or both] M y question is "is you'r toiled paper realy wet or not as wet as you would discribe it by your definitions { could it be moist and you don't notice/ could it be moist and the lvl of moistness is not wet enough for you to alk it by that definition yet ?]} and if 'damp'is 0% water [ when you just put water on it ] are you checking when toilet paper becomes wet or if water is wet ? (moist toilet paper 3:00 - 3:47) as you say "now lets get the toilet paper wet" ... so yea this about somthing other than water (?) making somthing wet ? and not if water is wet ?. But than what about water itself (like water in water ...)? my biggest question is/problem is: If you diffine the "wetness" of water by somthing else you don't difine if water is wet, you checking if somthing else [you'r "system"]. and plz stop streading miss information around (more water, specific 8:07 to 8:24). if water is not wet ... it does not matter how much of it you throw in your system ... your system, however, is not only water and therefore can not be used in using/difining if water is wet. sorry man I think you just checked if toilet papper can get wet { almost seems like you took a sh*t on the question } : ( { I hope you have some toilet paper to wipe that of} . No hard feelings and sorry if I was a D*ck in this comment, wish you and your lovedones the bes (regardless if that stuff is wet or not, I think it's one thing for sure: not making enemyies over, the world can do with a little more love already)

Actionslab:is water wet Me: *instant confusion*