/sci/ - Science & Math

it's all arbitrary.

how does the symbol 0 relate to boiling water in any way?

I realize you're probably just an idiot, but the Fahrenheit scale has exactly the same basis in reality as Celsius, it just uses different 'landmarks', iirc the freezing point of mercury at 0F and the temperature of a healthy human at 100F

>>2849195

*freezing

>different systems measure things differently

Who knew.

>>2849188

Those are somewhat retarded "landmarks".

>>2849210

Why is the freezing and boiling points of water any less retarded?

>>2849210

that's subjective

>>2849188

*96F

>>2849253

It was initially defined as 100F, later improvements in measurement are responsible for the discrepency. See also: the ratio of a meter to the speed of light, the setting of 'absolute zero' to a fractional value of C's

>kelvin
>let's set our system for measuring temperature relative to an unchanging absolute.

>celcius
>herp derp, let's set our temperature scale to the freezing point for water at earth's atmospheric pressure instead of measuring based on something much more stable.

celcius is substandard and so is anyone who uses it.

>>2849272

Kelvin has the same ratio as Celsius. That said, kelvin is master race.

>not measuring temperature in eV

>>2849291

Rankind ftw. Fahrenheit ratio starting at absolute 0.

>>2849308

>not measuring it in joules.

>>2849272
No actually they changed the reference point for celsius to triple point of water quite sometime ago. It is not so herp derp as you think.

>>2849314

No, the triple point of water is 0.01 degree.

They thought about changing it but never did.

>>2849321
i wasnt saying that 0 = triple point

>>2849316
>joules measure temperature
>laughingwhores.png

It's simple, Celsius is part of the metric group of units, which is far superior for base10 creatures like ourselves.

>>2849336

No they did. Celcius and Centrgrade are two slightly different scales. One is defined off the triple point, the other at 0/100. I think Centrigrade is the one based of triple point, but not sure.

if i didn't know fahrenheit i wouldn't know how hot it was going to be after i watched the weather report.

>>2849316

>'Hey, what's the temperature?'
>'4.02 zeptojoules'
>'Ah that's nice weather'

The only people that use Fahrenheit are American weathermen, OP. The scientific community uses Celsius/Kelvin if you haven't noticed.

>>2849353

Exactly my point. It's hilarious to say.

>>2849361
Unless they are on the west coast, then they just use the "fine-nice" scale

Yeah logic.

Fahrenheit gives a greater range within the usual subset of temperatures a person deals with in their daily life.

It's a tough thing moving an entire country from imperial to metric.

So what if america is a bit behind, they'll get there.

They're like the child of the world, trying to show off, encourage them, they'll get there.

i would argue that having to go through the motions of converting between the two systems makes you a more conscientious scientist/mathematician.

Celsius and Fahrenheit are both "broken," the only thing is which one is more arbitrary. Rankine and Kelvin are technically perfectly equal. I think Rankine's better honestly, because a degree Fahranheit is much, much easier to use intuitively than a degree Celsius. Fahrenheit /Rankine is more spread out, making it easier to measure things to a degree.

>>2849414
>implying freezing and boiling water is not part of one's daily life

The actual Celsius scale starts at the boiling point of water, and the freezing point of it is 100 Celsius.
Kelvin>Centigrade>Celsius>Fahrenheit

It's like that fucking beta/vhs argument all over again.

>>2849471
[citation needed]

>>2849439
>because a degree Fahranheit is much, much easier to use intuitively than a degree Celsius
Only if you grew up with Fahrenheit.

>>2849442
I implied no such thing. Also, 180 > 100.

>>2849478
sure

http://inventors.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.astro.uu.se/history/Celsius_eng.ht
ml

>he constructed his world famous Celsius thermometer, with 0 for the boiling point of water and 100 for the freezing point. After his death in 1744 the scale was reversed to its present form.

>>2849507
Well, that worked

http://www.astro.uu.se/history/Celsius_eng.html is the actual page

>Fahrenheit
>0 is super uncomfortable, 100 is super uncomfortable, 70 is just right
deal with it

>>2849416
>It's a tough thing moving an entire country from imperial to metric.

And yet everyone else seems to have managed it.

>>2849540

That's the American attitude to everything: "Deal with it."

It's why they're pretty much universally hated.

>>2849517
>After his death in 1744 the scale was reversed to its present form.

Your argument is invalid.

>>2849495
>I implied no such thing. Also, 180 > 100.

Ok, and 200 > 180. Use half degrees. (Numbers are divisible!) Or not, since 1 degree fahrenheit is already too small a difference in temperature to actually notice.

>>2849210
>>2849269
The Fahrenheit scale measures a brine solution at 0 degrees, which happened to be the lowest temperature obtainable in most labs when the scale was developed. Fahrenheit put the 100 degree mark to be the body temperature of a horse, which was, at the time, believed to more stable than the temperature of a human.
The Fahrenheit system is not based on water freezing/boiling or the human body temperature, it is based on what was considered the lowest achievable temperature and a stable near-human body temperature measurement, which arguably makes more sense than a system based around water.
Or you could just google this, you lazy ducks.

>>2849540
>implying 0 and 100 are equally uncomfortable

100 is barely above body temperature. 0 is cursing God cold.

>>2849570
>the actual Celsius scale is not the scale that Celsius created. As far as I'm concerned that equates to Celsius starting at 373 and Centigrade starting at -273
Kelvin are still the bestest though

>>2849594

Are you quoting someone?

>>2849619
I was planning on, then I just typed it myself.
Is it more credible if I pretend to have quoted someone?

>>2849633

Nah I was gonna reply with this anyway.

>>2849707
Fair enough

Kelvin > Celsius > Fahrenheit
I use Celsius for your information.

>>2849349
Wow, I didn't know that, I thought my parents just said centigrade instead of celsius because they're old.