Oh my god! They killed Kelvin!
@Jonathan Quick, Those Bastards!
@Jonathan Quick, aw man I shot Kelvin in the face
Spring has officially started and it's still around 40 degrees here
@MrWonka, Celsius or Fahrenheit
@mans laughter, kelvin
I'm usually all for us Americans switching to the same systems as the rest of the world however this does bring up a fair point. Not a big enough one that would change my mind but still.
@Roxas, Celsius is actually a terrible scale for temperature when it comes to usability and utility, as is Kelvin. Fahrenheit was specifically designed with human body temperature being at 100 which is much more relatable to us, since we are humans. Kelvin and Celsius are definitely better for science, and Fahrenheit is defined by Celsius so it's the best of both worlds when it comes to being the best scale for humans to use on an ordinary basis.
@BunnyGruff, spoken as someone too used to an illogical scale. Celsius is an excellent scale for usability and utility. It is easy to gage, and the difference between one degree and the next is actually noticeable. The difference between 15°C and 16°C is significantly more meaningful than the difference between 50°F and 55°F.
Fahrenheit is as illogical as the Imperial system. There's a good reason why both are considered obsolete in most of the world.
@BunnyGruff, Although not to down your reasonable answer Celsius keeps the matter state if water in mind. With 0 degrees being freezing point, and 100 boiling
@I Are Lebo, These are all true. Except its nice to keep in mind that the imperial system was also created in mind for usability. It focuses around everyday and average objects being used to approximate distance. Like a foot being an average foot. And an inch being about the length of the tip of your thumb to its first joint.
Its a matter of preference. But its hard to have unbiased preference since you learn about which one your country uses. I think the answer is to teach both equally at a young age.
@apel sos, spoken as someone who has very large hands and is 6'3", the Imperial system is retarded. A proper unit of measurement CANNOT be approximate. That negates the purpose of having a standardized unit of measurement. I really wish Canadian schools taught us to measure ourselves in metric (for some equally retarded reason Canadians use metric for everything but height and weight).
Metric is based in logic and units of ten, hundred, and thousand. Imperial is seemingly random. 12 inches in a foot, 3 feet to a yard, etc. It's harder to remember, and nearly impossible to accurately measure by eye.
Sorry for ranting, but if you take an unbiased look at both systems you find that metric is often more accurate than is necessary, and Imperial is often less accurate than is helpful.
@I Are Lebo, Im not saying the system is good because it allows people to approximate. Im just saying its kind of useful because not everyone carries around a ruler in their pocket. If youre an average person, you can gain a good idea on how long something is. I agree with the unit conversion though. Its hard for even me, a 19 year old to remember more than 3 of them.
@Roxas, Hi, Usually all for us Americans switching to the same systems as the rest of the world however this does bring up a fair point, I'm Dad
@BunnyGruff, and for the record, the span between lethally cold and lethally hot for a human being is not really that large. Having a 100° difference between uncomfortably cold and uncomfortably hot is so much more variance than is needed.
I was on vacation in the USA not that long ago, and every time someone brought up the temperature to me it was almost entirely meaningless. The difference between 60°F and 70°F felt like less than the difference between 20°C and 22°C.
In Ontario, where I'm from, the temperature varies throughout the year from being so cold that people die from hypothermia to being so hot that people die from heatstroke. This variance is still only between 30° and -30°.
I'm just saying, the info is streamlined in Celsius. It's like if you measured yourself in just inches, instead of inches and feet. 6'3" gets the message about my height across much faster than 75".
Sorry for the rant. It just bugs me a little.
@BunnyGruff, the temperature of the human body is 98.6°F, but I agree.
USA USA USA USA USA
@apel sos, I totally agree with you, though. I can't measure centimetres by eye worth for shït. I'm just saying that convenience doesn't equal superior. In fact, it's usually the opposite.
@I Are Lebo, I respect your opinion,but I must say that I refuse to measure my d!ck in centimeters.
@I Are Lebo, an opinion,in my funny pics?,it's more likely than you think
@I Are Lebo, With Fahrenheit having more units across the same temperature range, it's easier to put emphasis on the small changes. I can't even count the number of arguments I've gotten into about the difference between 68 and 70 on a thermostat, both at home with the wife and with colleagues at work. When you're trying to set to your preferred temperature, it's better to have finer tuning. I prefer 68-72 in four increments versus 20 to 22 in two.
@BunnyGruff, Celsius is great to use in labs and actual research kind of stuff. But in reference to the temperature outside, I do prefer Fahrenheit but I believe I could get used to Celsius fairly easily.
@I Are Lebo, "If you take an unbiased look"
Well there's your problem. You have a clear bias so saying that one method is retarded over the one you have a bias for makes you look retarded.
@BunnyGruff, Well, I just wanna say, countries don't use Kelvin as common measurement at all so you can forget about bringing it up as Kelvin was specifically created to measure the temperature of celestial bodies like stars.
@I Are Lebo, I like how you are goin on talking about the accuracy of Celsius and then said 60 and 70 ( a difference of 4.5ish Celsius) feels like less than a two degree Celsius difference. Do you not know the conversions or are you just throwing out random numbers trying to prove an idiotic point? Also chill the fvck out, both systems are useful imo. Also what thr fvck am I doing with my life, engaging a flame war between Fahrenheit and Celsius? Not only am I being stupid engaging, but this is one of the dumbest arguments I've ever seen in my life, that I chipped into no less...
@Dr Simon Acula, well when Fahrenheit was being created, the scientist used his wife to take the measure of a human body. It turned out she had a fever and because of this. The human body temp in Fahrenheit is not 100 but 98.6.
@I Are Lebo, I personally prefer the extra numbers we get. They seem to have more emphasis. Instead of just one number, we usually describe temperature in the 10's like saying it's going to be in the 50's or 80's. 32 isn't that hard to memorize as the freezing point of water. And when you own a thermostat, trust me, there's a HUGE difference between even 77 and 78
@Ser Waffle Knight, to clarify, I never made the argument that Celsius is more accurate. Fahrenheit has greater variance and is therefore more accurate. But it's to an unhelpful degree, imo.
@I Are Lebo, they're both equally as accurate. It's more about how you feel about the numbers. 35 just doesn't scream hot at me while 100 definitely does.
@BunnyGruff, that's a matter of perception, not accuracy.
@I Are Lebo, exactly, that's my point. You said Fahrenheit was more accurate and I corrected you saying it was a matter of perception.
@BunnyGruff, I meant it has more numbers covering a smaller scale. That's what accuracy is. How specific the scale measures. That's not a matter of perception.
The difference in temperature between 0° Celsius and 100° Celsius is greater than the difference between 0° Fahrenheit and 100° Fahrenheit.
Similarly, centimetres are more accurate than inches because they're smaller.
Celsius zero is freshwater freezing. Fahrenheit zero is salt water freezing. Kelvin zero is everything freezing
At 0 Kelvin, everything is dead because it could only exist if every single molecule and every molecule touching it, including air, was also at Zero Kelvin, where all atomic motion stops.
@Gay Rattlesnake , is 0 Kelvin theoretical, or is it actually possible to attain?
@I Are Lebo, it's currently impossible, but we've gotten damn close.
@The Nephalem, what would be the advantage of reaching 0° Kelvin? Stasis?
@I Are Lebo, something pretty close at least. Again, so far it's theorized, since we haven't yet achieved it.
@I Are Lebo, 0K is impossible to physically measure, as it would imply that the region at 0K contains no energy. Any attempts to detect this would add energy, ending the 0K. Additionally, because matter is energy, it would have to be a perfect vacuum, which is also impossible to maintain for more than a Planck second (one instant). TL;DR: it theoretically is possible, but we would never know
@I Are Lebo, you can't ever reach it, but it's useful to get extremely close for many reasons, we can find new results not predictable in physics and new states of matter, but the one I know most about is it's usefulness in quantum computing as it needs to be very cold to minimize noise
@I Are Lebo, reaching 0k would allow scientists to observe quantum effects on particles, something that is currently clouded by the small random vibrations any particle with heat makes.
Let's all just switch to Rankine!!
0 degrees Fahrenheit is not cold oh my god. Sorry, I live in interior Alaska.