PC What will happend after gold?

Roland said:
This silly argument is based on the premise that something is wet only if it is touched by water and therefore a person that is splashed by water can be wet but the water itself can't be wet.

Unfortunately for that argument, one of the fundamental principles of water is that its molecules tend to stick to each other so every bit of water is touched by other water at all times making all the water just as wet as anything else that is touched by water and thus...wet.

The only water that couldn't be wet would be a single molecule of H2O out of contact from any other H2O molecule.
Click to expand...
 
And this is on the premise that those fundamental principles are defined properly in the first place. For instance, I don't believe a physicist would define wetness as simply touching a molecule of some liquid. Wetness would more likely be defined as the level of adherence of a liquid to a solid. Due to the cohesive properties of water, it would require 6 or more water molecules to wet something solid and that something would have to have the correct properties as well to allow it.
 
By the given definition for the fundamental principles, a drop of oil in water would be wet, but we know this is not the case because water can never adhere to oil.
 

Urban Blackbear said:
 I'm pretty sure that's why we developed language in the first place.
Click to expand...


The problem, ironically, is language. Some people will use wet to describe the sensation of water adhering to something. This should have never been acceptable because something feeling wet is not necessarily being wet. A perfect example is calling humid air wet. Water molecules are not touching other molecules. A mesh of water molecules are not adhering to other molecules either.

Perhaps liquid water cannot be wet, because it implies that liquid water can also be dry. I'm not about to try to dry water.
 
The point of all of this? If you consider water to be wet then I can at least prove that there is a debate and it then follows that if making the statement that people will complain is like saying water is wet, then logically I made a great statement for a forum. 
I think we are getting closer to the real reason why language was made in the first place.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
AtomicUs5000 said:
 
And this is on the premise that those fundamental principles are defined properly in the first place. For instance, I don't believe a physicist would define wetness as simply touching a molecule of some liquid. Wetness would more likely be defined as the level of adherence of a liquid to a solid. Due to the cohesive properties of water, it would require 6 or more water molecules to wet something solid and that something would have to have the correct properties as well to allow it.
 
By the given definition for the fundamental principles, a drop of oil in water would be wet, but we know this is not the case because water can never adhere to oil.
 

The problem, ironically, is language. Some people will use wet to describe the sensation of water adhering to something. This should have never been acceptable because something feeling wet is not necessarily being wet. A perfect example is calling humid air wet. Water molecules are not touching other molecules. A mesh of water molecules are not adhering to other molecules either.

Perhaps liquid water cannot be wet, because it implies that liquid water can also be dry. I'm not about to try to dry water.
 
The point of all of this? If you consider water to be wet then I can at least prove that there is a debate and it then follow that if making the statement that people will complain like saying water is wet, then logically I made a great statement for a forum. 
I think we are getting closer to the real reason why language was made in the first place.
Click to expand...


I didn't say anything about other things being wet. I said water is wet.  Look for an argument elsewhere, you'll not get one out of me. Have a good day, Maybe argue with the wall about the definition of "good".

 
I was told there would be no physics.

Urban Blackbear said:
Saying people are going to complain is kind of like saying water is wet. I'm pretty sure that's why we developed language in the first place.
Click to expand...


What Grog try to say...Grog throw many stick at furtooth. Not hit furtooth many time. Then Grog throw stick better. Still Grog not have fire. Not have wheel. Why Krag throw stick...hit furtooth...Krag now know make fire? How Krag not do, but Krag learn?

 
Urban Blackbear said:
I didn't say anything about other things being wet. I said water is wet.  Look for an argument elsewhere, you'll not get one out of me. Have a good day, Maybe argue with the wall about the definition of "good".
Click to expand...
 
I didn't know we were arguing about it until just now.
You actually said, "Saying people are going to complain is kind of like saying water is wet."
Being how complex saying "water is wet" actually is, I thought it was a compliment.

 
Roland said:
This silly argument is based on the premise that something is wet only if it is touched by water and therefore a person that is splashed by water can be wet but the water itself can't be wet.

Unfortunately for that argument, one of the fundamental principles of water is that its molecules are adhesive to each other so every bit of water is touched by other water at all times making all the water just as wet as anything else that is touched by water and thus...wet.

The only water that couldn't be wet would be a single molecule of H2O out of contact from any other H2O molecule.
Click to expand...


Urban Blackbear said:
You must have gotten some of that dehydrated stuff. Have you tried rehydrating it somehow?
Click to expand...


AtomicUs5000 said:
 
And this is on the premise that those fundamental principles are defined properly in the first place. For instance, I don't believe a physicist would define wetness as simply touching a molecule of some liquid. Wetness would more likely be defined as the level of adherence of a liquid to a solid. Due to the cohesive properties of water, it would require 6 or more water molecules to wet something solid and that something would have to have the correct properties as well to allow it.
 
By the given definition for the fundamental principles, a drop of oil in water would be wet, but we know this is not the case because water can never adhere to oil.
 

The problem, ironically, is language. Some people will use wet to describe the sensation of water adhering to something. This should have never been acceptable because something feeling wet is not necessarily being wet. A perfect example is calling humid air wet. Water molecules are not touching other molecules. A mesh of water molecules are not adhering to other molecules either.

Perhaps liquid water cannot be wet, because it implies that liquid water can also be dry. I'm not about to try to dry water.
 
The point of all of this? If you consider water to be wet then I can at least prove that there is a debate and it then follows that if making the statement that people will complain is like saying water is wet, then logically I made a great statement for a forum. 
I think we are getting closer to the real reason why language was made in the first place.
Click to expand...


Urban Blackbear said:
I didn't say anything about other things being wet. I said water is wet.  Look for an argument elsewhere, you'll not get one out of me. Have a good day, Maybe argue with the wall about the definition of "good".
Click to expand...


AtomicUs5000 said:
 
I didn't know we were arguing about it until just now.
You actually said, "Saying people are going to complain is kind of like saying water is wet."
Being how complex saying "water is wet" actually is, I thought it was a compliment.
Click to expand...


Roland said:
Water isn't wet like a hot dog isn't a sandwich...
Click to expand...


Okay guys ...... This became  7 DAYS FOR SCIENCE! HOW?????????? ok....

 Another alternative timeline....

hm....

...

...

.

...

One thing is more powerfull that black hole ------ it is newsstands! Yes. Every newsstands is truly one newsstand using mind controle to camuflage their sale as diffrent newsstand because... of reasons ! you don't have to thanks me! you friendly neibourhood occult newsstand lunatic and his soo spooky skeletons are here ready to help!

 
AtomicUs5000 said:
 
Yes, water is newsstand like hotdog is a sandwich.
and people will complain
Click to expand...
Well.... in theory hamburger is a sandwich too....

PEOPLE WILL NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT NEWSSTAND! I WILL PROTECT THEM FOR ALL COST!

Rly newsstands is one of  few positive things in my live

 
AtomicUs5000 said:
For instance, I don't believe a physicist would define wetness as simply touching a molecule of some liquid.
Click to expand...
Why would a physicist's definition matter? I would bet that a word for "wet" existed well before a single person had any idea that physics could be a thing. The concept probably existed even before actual language, but of course that's kinda hard to grasp and argue.

For practical purposes, water behaves exactly like anything else that is wet. You touch the wet thing and your skin gets wet. The water is indeed the thing making things wet, but it also behaves like anything else that is wet.

And, I'm not a native english speaker, but I would describe a rag doused in gasoline being wet, both in my native and as such in english as well; I might be wrong by some definitions, but it would still feel right. Mostly. It would "want" a specification, "wet with gasoline", but still wet. As in, it's not even necessarily a property of water.

Oh well, silly tangents ahoy ... :)

 
Matt115 said:
Well.... in theory hamburger is a sandwich too....

PEOPLE WILL NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT NEWSSTAND! I WILL PROTECT THEM FOR ALL COST!

Rly newsstands is one of  few positive things in my live
Click to expand...


This is Matt when he was a kid...

aafw001309_1024x1024.jpeg

 
Jost Amman said:
This is Matt when he was a kid...

Click to expand...
Nah - it was more like " it's nothing everywhere so at least there is something positive like phone pendand ( it was like - buy it and stick to your phone) and talking with owner well... btw even comic weren't there. Honestly until 2015 my city was so.... backwardness. Things change but most of newsstands in my city are gone, Now left almost only big "standards" shops. hard to say - now is easier to buy things but... idk everything is so generic. Cod is even worst with every new game, fortnite is somehow popular when good game like a plague tale not. People love generic game with microtransations.... at least Avatar 2 will be in this year so this will be only positive thing but i'm will be probably dissapointed like with age of empire 4. 

Total war warhammer 3 is just terrible too...

DL2 is generic as it was mad by " make your generic post apo with zombie after at least 20 year after outbreake " program

Marvel movies after Endgame are more and more terrible

So... yeah 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
theFlu said:
Why would a physicist's definition matter? I would bet that a word for "wet" existed well before a single person had any idea that physics could be a thing. The concept probably existed even before actual language, but of course that's kinda hard to grasp and argue.
Click to expand...
 
I guess it matters, literally, because it is a word that describes some physical state of matter. I think if we only went with the original definitions of words at first use, language would be in trouble. For example, universe originally meant "all that exists", but over time with scientific advancements the possibility exists that our universe is just one of many. A universe can be more of an abstract concept now, such as the Marvel Universe. (no, not DC @Matt115, we don't care about DC)
 
I think you mean to say that water behaves like anything that is liquid. I can be wet, but water doesn't behave like me. Do you see how this word can be strange? Mercury at lab room temperature is a liquid, but it cannot make you wet because it has too much cohesion and doesn't have enough adhesion. A sponge won't even work on it. There are some other metals that mercury can make wet.

theFlu said:
And, I'm not a native english speaker, but I would describe a rag doused in gasoline being wet, both in my native and as such in english as well; I might be wrong by some definitions, but it would still feel right. Mostly. It would "want" a specification, "wet with gasoline", but still wet. As in, it's not even necessarily a property of water.
Click to expand...
 
I would consider it wet too. The rag is a solid and the liquid gasoline is adhering to it. It is true that some people associate wetness with only water, but this is something heard more from older generations. Strangely, there are terms such as "wet gas" and "dry gas" for natural gas which only refer to whether or not it contains some liquid upon extraction.

So, now to make this on topic.
If the definition of wet ever changes and is mutually accepted by all dictionary institutions, it will probably happen some time after 7D2D goes gold.

 
AtomicUs5000 said:
 
I guess it matters, literally, because it is a word that describes some physical state of matter. I think if we only went with the original definitions of words at first use, language would be in trouble. For example, universe originally meant "all that exists", but over time with scientific advancements the possibility exists that our universe is just one of many. A universe can be more of an abstract concept now, such as the Marvel Universe. (no, not DC @Matt115, we don't care about DC)
 
Click to expand...
Well Marvel zombie earths are pretty fun.

But  DC is better because  Raven and Beast boy are cute couple. Still better land in DC universe that in Marvel universe. XD 

Well the most depressing thing in " multiverse theory" ? Even if it's true it is not possible jump from one to another

 
AtomicUs5000 said:
Do you see how this word can be strange?
Click to expand...
Yup, a little strange it is. And I do acknowledge that language changes, but it doesn't mean we should be nonchalant about it. That universe for example; it is only a physicist that redefined multiple universes - because it is easy that way. It could, and in the original definition should be defined as "we just found out there might be a lot more of the same in the universe, basically infinite copies of what we currently can witness" - but I don't mind the concept of a multiverse; it is in the proper scale for the newly found issue.

I don't argue that the people opposing the colloquial "water is wet" are necessarily entirely wrong; but I would argue the counterarguments are usually attempts at some sort of redefinition. Water just Is wet; anything that defines wetness or water such that water would not be wet will (in my interpretation, (applies to all of my discussion without further repeats)) be mistaken in the essence of the phenomenon.

It is a "contagious" property, wet things will necessarily make other things wet; that is what I meant by water behaving like any other wet thing. To become wet from touching water is to become wet by touching a wet thing. In both cases the water is the thing that makes the new thing wet, and the wetness is the property that is then contaminating both.

There are edge cases, like having too little water to be classified as wet, but for that there is moist and damp and probably more.. difference between moist and wet seems to be that the wetness isn't really contagious anymore. You can touch a moist thing and feel that it is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike wet.

AtomicUs5000 said:
Strangely, there are terms such as "wet gas" and "dry gas" for natural gas which only refer to whether or not it contains some liquid upon extraction.
Click to expand...


I don't exactly find those that strange; I would describe the air in a steaming hot sauna "wet". You can make the argument that the air merely carries water droplets; but I'd make the argument that the air makes things touching it wet, thus it has the contagious property of "wet". The air indeed consist of tiny ball pairs flying hundreds of meters per second, but the air that is wet is the thing that we breathe desperately when exhausted and feel moving on our skin when it is windy. The air that is wet isn't really nitrogen and oxygen, it's the thing we live in and moves around us.

I actually find "metal wettened with mercury" stranger; if it doesn't make me wet, can it be wet?

Yes, this is getting a bit poetic. But I think that's close enough. Maybe :)

 
theFlu said:
Yup, a little strange it is. And I do acknowledge that language changes, but it doesn't mean we should be nonchalant about it. That universe for example; it is only a physicist that redefined multiple universes - because it is easy that way. It could, and in the original definition should be defined as "we just found out there might be a lot more of the same in the universe, basically infinite copies of what we currently can witness" - but I don't mind the concept of a multiverse; it is in the proper scale for the newly found issue.

I don't argue that the people opposing the colloquial "water is wet" are necessarily entirely wrong; but I would argue the counterarguments are usually attempts at some sort of redefinition. Water just Is wet; anything that defines wetness or water such that water would not be wet will (in my interpretation, (applies to all of my discussion without further repeats)) be mistaken in the essence of the phenomenon.

It is a "contagious" property, wet things will necessarily make other things wet; that is what I meant by water behaving like any other wet thing. To become wet from touching water is to become wet by touching a wet thing. In both cases the water is the thing that makes the new thing wet, and the wetness is the property that is then contaminating both.

There are edge cases, like having too little water to be classified as wet, but for that there is moist and damp and probably more.. difference between moist and wet seems to be that the wetness isn't really contagious anymore. You can touch a moist thing and feel that it is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike wet.

I don't exactly find those that strange; I would describe the air in a steaming hot sauna "wet". You can make the argument that the air merely carries water droplets; but I'd make the argument that the air makes things touching it wet, thus it has the contagious property of "wet". The air indeed consist of tiny ball pairs flying hundreds of meters per second, but the air that is wet is the thing that we breathe desperately when exhausted and feel moving on our skin when it is windy. The air that is wet isn't really nitrogen and oxygen, it's the thing we live in and moves around us.

I actually find "metal wettened with mercury" stranger; if it doesn't make me wet, can it be wet?

Yes, this is getting a bit poetic. But I think that's close enough. Maybe :)
Click to expand...
Idk how this topic change from "dlc in future " into " multiverse"

 
Matt115 said:
Idk how this topic change from "dlc in future " into " multiverse"
Click to expand...
Hmm, it didn't; it was way more profound than that for me. But apologies nonetheless; I think I finally managed to nail that silly debate down in my mind during this discussion and got completely carried away.

To slightly contribute to the original topic; I don't know what TFP will do, but I'm keen to find out. For 7dtd though.. MODS. Once it is properly finalized, I'm basically hoping it to become somewhat of a game platform into itself. I'm a little pessimistic about the apparent pressure for "just finish it" possibly causing optimization holes, but given enough care, it could become pretty awesome base for a whole lot of different quirky things.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top