Since heat is thermal energy, it can transfer this thermal energy but it loses some due to the second law of thermodynamics. Water doesn’t lose the ability to adhere to other things when it transfers, so the two phenomenon are not really equateable.
In physics, the definition of wet is widely “that which water adheres to” and excludes water, as other definitions typically lack utility. End of discussion, at least until you define a context where some other definition is more useful and also coherent with the discourse.
Also, heat does not lose thermal energy - energy cannot be destroyed, the 2nd law applies only to states - not energy, and pedantically: heat is the transfer of thermal energy, so heat is still heat regardless of amount of thermal energy.
Fair enough, heat can’t lose heat. However when it interacts with a substance some of the energy is “lost” in that it transfers to the substance. Unless it is a completely inert material.
Can you hold a unit of heat? Or do you hold a substance that is imbued with heat energy? Seems like a good reason to say the two are not equateable, which was the main point.
Other than that, a specific fields definition of wet does not make the term exclusive to that field. In aquatic science, wet still means something that water is adhering to. Water adheres to itself so water is wet.
Since heat is thermal energy, it can transfer this thermal energy but it loses some due to the second law of thermodynamics. Water doesn’t lose the ability to adhere to other things when it transfers, so the two phenomenon are not really equateable.
You are conflating semantics with physics.
In physics, the definition of wet is widely “that which water adheres to” and excludes water, as other definitions typically lack utility. End of discussion, at least until you define a context where some other definition is more useful and also coherent with the discourse.
Also, heat does not lose thermal energy - energy cannot be destroyed, the 2nd law applies only to states - not energy, and pedantically: heat is the transfer of thermal energy, so heat is still heat regardless of amount of thermal energy.
Fair enough, heat can’t lose heat. However when it interacts with a substance some of the energy is “lost” in that it transfers to the substance. Unless it is a completely inert material.
Can you hold a unit of heat? Or do you hold a substance that is imbued with heat energy? Seems like a good reason to say the two are not equateable, which was the main point.
Other than that, a specific fields definition of wet does not make the term exclusive to that field. In aquatic science, wet still means something that water is adhering to. Water adheres to itself so water is wet.