• C126@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    So why not make the temperature go to the hottest? Let me guess, 0 isn’t the coldest either in America, right? It’s just so arbitrary, and pure cope to say it’s the best way to describe temperature.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s just so arbitrary

      All of them are. The decision to use water at all is completely arbitrary. Even Kelvin and Rankine are completely arbitrary: the “width” of the degrees is not defined by a physical factor, but relative to an entirely arbitrary concept.

      • C126@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Technically all arbitrary, but Fahrenheit is definitely on a whole different level of arbitrary.

        Celsius - 0 = precise freezing point of water and 100 = precise boiling point

        Kelvin - same as C, but shifted so 0 is the precise lowest possible temperature

        Fahrenheit - 0 is the imprecise freezing point of some random brine mixture, 100 is the imprecise average body temperature of the developer

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          100 is the imprecise average body temperature of the developer

          That’s a myth. It’s no more true than the myth that it was the body temperature of horses, or that the scale was designed to reflect how humans experience the weather. (It happens to reflect how humans experience the weather, but this was an incidental characteristic and not the purpose for which the scale was designed.)

          The Fahrenheit scale starts to make sense when you realize he was a geometrist. It turns out that a base-10 system of angular measurement objectively sucks ass, so the developer wasn’t particularly interested geometrically irrelevant numbers like “100”, but in geometrically interesting numbers like “180”. He put 180 degrees between the freezing and boiling points of water. (212F - 32F = 180F)

          After settling on the “width” of his degree, he measured down to a repeatable origin point, which happened to be 32 of his degrees below the freezing point of water. He wanted a dial thermometer to point straight down in ice water, straight up in boiling water, and to use the same angular degrees as a protractor.

          The calibration point he chose wasn’t the “freezing point” of the “random brine mixture”. The brine was water, ice, and ammonium chloride, which together form a frigorific mixture due to the phase change of the water. As the mixture is cooled, it resists getting colder than 0F due to the phase change of the water to ice. As it is warmed, it resists getting warmer than 0F due to the phase change of ice to water. (Obviously, it can’t maintain this relationship indefinitely. But so long as there is ice and liquid brine, the brine will maintain this temperature.) This makes it repeatable, in labs around the world.

          And it wasn’t a “random” brine mixture: it was the coldest and most stable frigorific mixture known to the scientific community.

          This criticism of Fahrenheit is borne of simple ignorance: people don’t understand how or why it was developed, and assume he was an idiot. He wasn’t. He had very good reasons for his choices.

          • C126@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            That was a long way of saying what I said, you just don’t see faranheit as ludicrously out of date, while I (and most of the world) do. Live your life as you wish friend. It’s a random brine mixture. Maybe it was less random back then, but now it’s an arbitrary mixture of water and salts in arbitrary ratios. Deal with it. Fahrenheit sucks.

            • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              Every measurement system has had its formal definition changed several times. The kilogram, for example, was once formally defined as the mass of a specific block of metal in France, which was later determined to be losing mass, and thus made a pretty terrible standard. Now, the kilogram is formally defined in terms of the meter and the Planck Constant.

              Celsius was once defined by the freezing and boiling points of water, but those aren’t actually constant: Fahrenheit’s brine mixture is actually significantly more consistent. Kelvin’s degree spacing comes from that definition of Celsius, but it it was eventually redefined to be more precise by using the triple point of water: pure water at a specific pressure and temperature where it can simultaneously exist as solid, liquid, and gas. Significantly more accurate, but not enough: Kelvin was redefined in 2019 in terms of joules, which are in turn defined by kg, m, s, which are ultimately defined in terms of the Planck constant.

              Celsius is now formally defined in terms of Kelvin. Fahrenheit is also formally defined in terms of Kelvin. Fahrenheit’s brine story is just a piece of trivia.

      • psud@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        We live on a water planet. The weather we care about is water.

        If you look at the overnight low you probably want to know if frost was likely. Guess what Celcius temperature frost happens at.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          That factoid makes celsius relevant for about 4 out of the 12 months, and humans lack the capacity to distinguish between 60-100 on the Celsius scale. Anything at those temperatures just feels like blisters.

          • psud@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            The high end of 0 to 100 is nice for boiling, when I’m making beer at the boiling stage the number on the scale goes from somewhere below 25 to 100 and so the end point is obvious

            We boil water quite a lot, though we often aren’t tracking the temperature

            Most of the time the temperature scale that’s best is the one you know. I don’t know of any case where Fahrenheit is objectively best (like Celcius is when water is involved) but I think the best argument for Celcius is it is used in science, so American scientists start a step behind all the others by having to learn a new system. Given neither have any great advantage I reckon it’s worth America changing to make things better for American scientists

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      why not make it more arbitrary? Why not leave metric rules and use something like twelve that has fractions? Because it’s nice. It’s pleasing having it be 0f and 100f, it’s a clean range, and it’s also pretty comprehensive in terms of the temperature variance.

      It just happens to work out pretty nicely.

      You’re literally just applying the anti-thesis of the metric system to the question, and asking me why we don’t do it that way, idk what you’re expecting me to say here.

      do celsius users not consider something like -20c to be “pretty cold” and 40c to be “pretty hot” That’s equally as arbitrary.

    • psud@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      The records are -80°F and 134°F

      That’s quite an error in a “whole human experience in zero to one hundred” system