Shorts in 10C is standard practice for me. Really not that cold for us in the NorthWest. Now if we’re talking Southern Californians 10C is heavy winter jacket weather.
I know you sent this for me personally as a reminder to get back on my meds because it just showed up on my phone without me opening it, and I appreciate you for it.
Kelvin use the same scale as Celsius, the only difference is the zero point. The imperial system and Farenheit sucks and result very expensive and cause even deaths because of wrong conversions: Crushed 2 Mars probes >$350M, flight crash with more than 130 victims because of an error calculating the amount of fuel, wrong amount of medicine respect bodyweight, etc…
I’m sorry, but Fahrenheit has nothing to do with the errors you cited. Hell, even the overall Imperial system, silly an (mostly) antiquated as it is, has nothing to do with the examples you cited.
The expensive failures you listed were caused by a lack of standardization. Those failures wouldn’t have taken place if every international agency had standardized on the Imperial system or the metric system.
Your point is not only a nonsensical non sequitur, it is also wrong.
It has nothing to do with standardization. With science and technology today, it is not possible to work in conditions with measurements and units random, based on parts of the body of a dead king centuries ago and not even, what is more serious, does not differentiate between weight and mass. Besides, it requires complicated conversions, a source of errors. For example of calculating the angular momentum in different parts of a 1.6 mile long bridge, if it has to be calculated with inches. No problem in a Bridge of 2,364 km to use Meters, centimetros or even Milimetros, only have to move the coma, no calculations needed. The important thing in science is that the units are repeatable and reconstructible, which in degrees Celsius is not a problem, having as a reference the freezing and boiling of water at sea level as a reference. A similar reference for Fahrenheit does not exist, at least not with sufficient accuracy, which is why it was discarded as a unit. You can be sure that the manufacturers that supply Fahrenheit thermometers to the US calibrate them using Celsius or Kelvin, then put the Fahrenheit scale after converting the values.
Apologies, but I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Both Celsius and Fahrenheit are based off the exact same thing: the freezing and boiling points of water. Fahrenheit just gives you more resolution between the two (180 degrees for Fahrenheit vs 100 degrees for Celsius), but otherwise they operate in the same way.
I agree that the underpinnings of the weight and distance measurements used in the Imperial system are silly, but they are still just as accurate as the weight and distance measurements in the metric system. The metric system’s units for weight and distance are more logical and easier to use, but that doesn’t make them more accurate given modern measurement methods.
I think the US should adopt the metric system in general, but I honestly don’t see the point in bringing Celsius along with the rest of the measurement standards.
I honestly see zero benefit to Celsius over Fahrenheit: they are both pegged to the boiling and freezing points of water, Celsius was just unnecessarily limited in the number of degrees between those two points. Beyond that limitation of Celsius, there’s basically zero difference between it and Fahrenheit.
It’s not like that. Fahrenheit is not based on the freezing and boiling point of water, which is used32ºF and 180ºF as a reference, if not, it would result absurdo. No it serves to consider it the same claiming that water freezes at 32ºF because it is known. It does not make it reconstructible, essential in science. You can’t work with randomly obtained values if you use a fixed reference like water, how do you want to determine a zero point without do all kinds of conversions in physical or chemical applications and experiments? Sure, you can put a thermometer on ice and in boiling water and then put a scale between 32º and 180º instead of between 0º and 100º, to measure in Fahrenheit, but this does not solve the problem of reconstructibility of these units. Fahrenheit set the 0ºF and the 100ºF on the scale by recording the lowest temperatures he could measure and his own body temperature, by being in a slight state of fever. He took the lowest temperature that was measured in the harsh winter of 1708 to 1709 in his city of Gdansk (Poland), about -17.8 C, as point 0 F, with this we have the same problem as with the other imperial units, they lacks an exact unit for the reconstruction, not better than the pie as unit for the lenght. Even the Réaumur scale is better, also use 0º for the freeze point of water, but using a octagesimal scale where water boils at 80º instead of 100º in C.
The US doesn’t use imperial, it uses US customary.
There’s no US customary Roman mile, ell or skeine, for example.
Chains and links are basically standard surveyors chains. They’re distinct units in their own right in the sense that a metric chain or metric link is. Should your metric chart have a metric chain on it? What about light years or parsecs?
Hands are used in measuring horses, and that’s basically it. They’re used in commonwealth countries, the US and South Africa.
Jokes on you. I’m an american who works with scientific equipment so I mainly work in Celsius. Also live in Minnesota so we get the best of both worlds. Last winter hit almost -30C at times meanwhile tomorrow has a high of 39C with almost 70% humidity.
Yup. At least in my area. It’s not going to be pretty. Hell I’m outside right now and it’s over 30C at nearly midnight. I walked out the door and felt like I stepped into a sauna.
It’s the best way to think about it because if you’re always doing the calculation in your head you still always think in Fahrenheit first. Just get the feeling for Celcius instead of trying to shoehorn a worse system in (as a user of said worse system myself).
I understand and appreciate your joke, but is it really? And I imagine that the bones and skin would melt first, right? Idk. I’ve never considered that someone could melt from the inside.
Not literally, no, but it can be very difficult to concentrate on anything else when you’re suffering under immense heat and a lack of concentration can lead to a figurative brain meltdown.
That being said, the brain is mostly fluid, fat and electric connections so it would DEFINITELY melt long before your bones.
Would have to be around 50-60°C for the 60% of it that’s fat to hypothetically melt if exposed directly to the heat rather than protected by the skull and cooled down by the blood, but that’s nothing compared to the 1670°C melting point of human bones.
Btw, I hope you’re happy with this reply since my Google search history looks rather grisly now 😂
Texas is Hell though. Anyone who’s been there understands this. From the heat to the guns to the people, it’s far and away the least desirable or interesting place I’ve been to. Austin wasn’t terrible though.
Don’t Texans just stay in air-conditioned buildings and vehicles all the time? I just saw a YouTube video where a guy in Texas was complaining that his air conditioning setup wouldn’t get the temperature below 76°F, which I found odd since I set the thermostat on my AC to 26°C (which is nearly 79°F.)
Yeah that’s absolutely a thing all over warm weather states in America. It drives me crazy that I try to acclimate to the higher heat and just end up inside with 68° air conditioner settings. Absolutely freezing my ass off. But the reality is that is more middle/ upper class living. If you’re doing manual labor or living in poverty, you know what the heat is actually like.
It doesn’t fit into the rhyme, but -10°C is the point where just wearing a coat isn’t enough. You need to either start limiting the time you spend outside or put some serious thought into the protective clothing you wear beyond just throwing a coat on as you go out the door.
I had a water bottle in my car when it was around -11 °C, and when I tried to drink it, the supercooled water instantly froze solid, which was startling, but hardly surprising.
More like 30° I’m melted into the pavement, 20° warm but good, 10° is near perfect, 0° starts getting cols, -10° put on a jacket, -20° and below put on a good jacket.
Don’t feel dumb man, trying to make yours rhyme is fun actually. I like that you added other temps. That’s how I learned it in America as a kid and remembered it, because it rhymes.
Honest question: other than the number of people using Celsius, what benefits does Celsius bring over Fahrenheit?
Even the scientific community felt the need to hollow out the Celsius scale, leaving the numerical values of Celsius in tact but otherwise completely decoupling the scale from the properties of water when it created kelvin. It instead moved to measured values, like basically all other SI/metric units.
Celsius is there to describe water. Well, it’s used to describe a mostly pure form of water. Well, it’s used to describe a mostly pure form of water at around sea level. So, why does that make Celsius more relevant or useful for temperatures than Fahrenheit?
Frankly, it feels like Celsius is, to the rest of the world, what the Imperial system is to the US: a vestige of times past that has been supplanted by a better, measurement-based standard, but has yet to be abandoned because it is so entrenched in popular culture.
Celsius and Kelvin are identical, just shifted scales.
Fahrenheit has an equivalent which is rankine. It’s not that one is evidence based over the other, one is just absolute temperature and one shifted to be useful, essentially.
Respectfully, I don’t think you are completely correct.
While you are right that Kelvin is tied to absolute zero, it is also defined in such a way that a change in 1K corresponds to a change of thermal energy kT by 1.380649×10−23 J (the Boltzmann constant).
It is the difference in what 0K describes, along with the fact that a change in temperature equals a specific change in thermal energy (the measured value to which I previously referred), that separate it from Celsius. In Celsius, zero is the freezing point of (mostly pure) water (at sea level), and a change in temperature has no relationship to a specific/prescribed change in thermal energy.
Celsius is literally Kelvin + 273.15. They measure the same thing.
Fahrenheit is as Celsius is to rankine, which is also a measure of absolute temperature.
I’m not quite clear on where this is confusing you, Celsius is improper in many non relative equations yes but that’s due to the math not a fundamental difference in what is being measured.
Ah, I guess I misread (in my own research) or somehow missed that a degree change in Celsius was directly pegged the same degree change in Kelvin (shifted by 273.15 ) when the Kelvin scale was updated to be pegged to the Boltzmann constant. Thank you for helping me understand where my understanding was flawed!
I guess I still don’t understand the utility of Celsius, though. If it’s really just an alias, shifted by 273.15, for Kelvin, what utility does Celsius offer? Why not just use Kelvin?
Tradition, culture, etc make Celsius a useful tool. Human perception if temperatures is also not well correlated to Kelvin, where a change in 1 K is less than 0.5%, but to a person it certainly feels more substantial. By relating the scale we use daily to freezing and boiling of water, you at least capture both an okay human sensitivity, and important temperatures to us as humans.
Fahrenheit arguably goes a step further, defining a much narrower range for humans specifically, with some landmarks for water.
No system is objectively better, it’s all convention and arbitrary. We could define an absolute temperature scale which puts human temperatures at 1 blorp, 0 as absolute 0. Clearly the resolution is pretty low, you’d have to define the weather with decimals. Oh well, that’s fine. Annoying maybe, but valid.
lemmy.ml
Newest