Celsius is a poor measurement system, Fight ME!

[EsaT]

13 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

I prefer Fahrenheit for weather as it's more granular without being ridiculous.

Fahrenheit stops making sense for weather when you have to deal with temperatures on both sides of water's freezing point.

Something you might not think that much there in Florida.

 

13 hours ago, pinksnowbirdie said:

but even negative F, icing is likely.  more likely than 0c to -3c

Actually in temperatures farther below freezing point (like that 0F) air is usually very dry and icy surfaces aren't very slippery.

That's caused by water molecules sublimating from "wetter" ice to dry air.

Again when temperature is just below freezing point, air is usually lot more humid and ice more slippery.

Because there's more balance between water molecules moving away from ice and sticking to it.

Especially warm air mass after cold weather causes humidity from air to freeze on cold surfaces creating more/new ice.

And if there's any liquid water raining, that makes ice super slippery by acting as lubrificant.

[mr moose]

37 minutes ago, YaBoiWill said:

Often given the name of sea water, or anything salty tbh

Yes, but I think Esat's point was that the salt content varies way to much even within just one briny thing (like sea water) to be used as a reference for scientific measurement.

 

 

[AlwaysFSX]

48 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Damn it, I have way too much experience not being American, no wonder I failed finger painting. 

Darn it moose.

45 minutes ago, EsaT said:

Fahrenheit stops making sense for weather when you have to deal with temperatures on both sides of water's freezing point.

Something you might not think that much there in Florida.

Nah. It's fine.

[Bananasplit_00]

we should all just use SI units, so Kelvin it is

[Drak3]

37 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Wasn't there a King of the Hill episode about this involving Canadians?

Yeah. It was dog shit.

[Eduard the weeb]

because when I think water temp I think 32 and 212 ( FYI i hate Fahrenheit even thought I live in the US ) 

[ARikozuM]

2 hours ago, EsaT said:

Fahrenheit stops making sense for weather when you have to deal with temperatures on both sides of water's freezing point.

Something you might not think that much there in Florida.

I'm from Jersey. As long as it's cold, I'm fine. This heat sucks, though. Red tide ain't helping things. 

[Drak3]

4 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

I'm from Jersey

Explains why your face is so punchable.

 

/s

[ARikozuM]

Just now, Drak3 said:

Explains why your face is so punchable.

 

/s

It is, but I only let bloodthirsty animals try their luck. 

[jpenguin]

What about Rankine?

[Derrk]

distance should be measured in smoots, temperature is irrelevant 

[TechyBen]

Worse. Actual "temperature" does not exist.

 

Like. It's not a thing.

 

What you mean and what you measure are something entirely different. So Celcius or Farenheit (why not "-height"?), neither actually *exist*!

[geo3]

9 hours ago, EsaT said:

Fahrenheit stops making sense for weather when you have to deal with temperatures on both sides of water's freezing point.

umm... no it doesn't.

[DimasRMDO]

Spoiler

 

[DimasRMDO]

On 8/26/2018 at 8:37 AM, Rune said:

You're right. Kelvin is much better.

[manikyath]

15 hours ago, Derrk said:

distance should be measured in smoots, temperature is irrelevant 

you sir, deserve one entire thumb up for a vague reference.

 

on topic:

Imperial units are more easily relate-able to in daily life: an inch (vaguely) relates to the width of your thumb, "its a hundred degrees outside" makes sense in Fahrenheit, and the like.

 

on the flip side, the moment you start doing scientific measurements, and relating those measurements with each other, you realise that imperial is actually stupid compared to metric, to the point where with imperial you may as well be concluding the length of a bridge is "364.4 smoots +/- one ear" and try to relate that to its weight in "rocks".

 

in short, Imperial is more relate-able for common joe looking at the weather outside, Metric makes more sense to scientists, engineers, and other people who actually need those measurements.

 

to add insult to injury, imperial units are defined based off the metric system

[Teddy07]

I don´t fight stupid people, sorry

[mr moose]

59 minutes ago, manikyath said:

in short, Imperial is more relate-able for common joe looking at the weather outside,

 

I beg to differ, it just comes down to what your used to.   We still say "it's a hundred degrees outside" and that makes sense because all we are saying is it's stinkin' hot. 

 

 

 

 

[Derrk]

5 hours ago, manikyath said:

you sir, deserve one entire thumb up for a vague reference.

 

on topic:

Imperial units are more easily relate-able to in daily life: an inch (vaguely) relates to the width of your thumb, "its a hundred degrees outside" makes sense in Fahrenheit, and the like.

 

on the flip side, the moment you start doing scientific measurements, and relating those measurements with each other, you realise that imperial is actually stupid compared to metric, to the point where with imperial you may as well be concluding the length of a bridge is "364.4 smoots +/- one ear" and try to relate that to its weight in "rocks".

 

in short, Imperial is more relate-able for common joe looking at the weather outside, Metric makes more sense to scientists, engineers, and other people who actually need those measurements.

 

to add insult to injury, imperial units are defined based off the metric system

or 1 km is actually 587.6 smoots, how is this not the standard?

 

people running the "100 meter" sprint?? more like the 58.7 smoot sprint

[manikyath]

4 hours ago, Derrk said:

or 1 km is actually 587.6 smoots, how is this not the standard?

 

people running the "100 meter" sprint?? more like the 58.7 smoot sprint

would our local "supermarathon" be 58.7 kilosmoots, or 58700 smoots? (+/- 1 ear)

 

(PS: bucket list item for smoot: come measure said supermarathon to verify it's actually 100km)

[manikyath]

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

I beg to differ, it just comes down to what your used to.   We still say "it's a hundred degrees outside" and that makes sense because all we are saying is it's stinkin' hot. 

i use metric in my "everyday" life, but do use a lot of imperial for very specific things like display sizes, or for talking to that kind of american that does the human equivalent of a blue screen when you say "15m²" and look at you as if you just spoke in parseltongue. (to continue the trend of vague references.)

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, manikyath said:

i use metric in my "everyday" life, but do use a lot of imperial for very specific things like display sizes, or for talking to that kind of american that does the human equivalent of a blue screen when you say "15m²" and look at you as if you just spoke in parseltongue. (to continue the trend of vague references.)

If the Americans would hurry up and adopt the metric system then display sizes wouldn't be imperial.  Same with car rims and basically any other mass produced product that ships to the US.   I

[Jtalk4456]

On 8/25/2018 at 9:40 PM, bob345 said:

" Much like the metric system it's just not that accurate without going into "large" decimal values " Uhhh what? you dont say 0.01 millimeter, you say 10 micron.

I would normally agree with you EXCEPT in the case of C, since there is no milli-Celsius. Fahrenheit is the one part of the imperial system i like. For normal use it's easy to read. 0 is cold 100 is getting hot. There's hotter and colder, but for normal use, it makes sense. somewhere around 50 degrees is where it starts to turn from cool to warm. I think F works very well and is easy to gauge

[Blasteque]

Oh my...

 

The purpose of standards is ease of communication and repeat-ability.  As far as communication is concerned, basically any system works once the population is accustomed to it (hence the argument here).

 

Repeat-ability is another matter.  Can I take your definition into a lab and reproduce the results?  0 C was defined as the temp at which ice melts, not water freezes (not that either is particularly ease to work with); this is very subjective to the observer.  100 C was defined as the boil point.  Both of these were set when it was believe that both these phase change points were relatively stable, homogeneous, and temp didn't change while the phase is changing.  Turns out, this isn't actually true (it's also dependent on ambient conditions, but it's assumed you somehow have this under control).  As a consequence, those set points really weren't a good idea if you want precision repeat-ability; they both vary too much.

 

Fahrenheit was better as far as the 0 point was concerned.  It was achieved when you mix equal masses of ice, water, and ammonium chloride; it will automatically reach a temperature equilibrium for a certain span of time (frigorific mixture).  It actually works and doesn't require guessing as to when the ice started to melt or an assumption of homogeneous temp.  The 100 F equals body temp was a guess based upon an incorrect assumption (all healthy humans have the same temp) and poor instrumentation (healthy humans = 100 F).

 

Regardless of where they originated, both are now defined relative to absolute zero, so it really doesn't make any difference anymore.  As an engineer I prefer the SI system because of how it handles mass and weight.  The temp systems, at this point, really are just arbitrary.

[Drak3]

27 minutes ago, Jtalk4456 said:

For normal use it's easy to read. 0 is cold 100 is getting hot

While in Celsius, 0 is chilly, 100 is dead.

 

And in Kelvin, 0 is dead, 100 is dead.