Comment on Burning Up
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months agomaybe it’s a climate thing? Where do you live, here in ameica it’s quite literally the best way to describe it. We see swings below 0f at the coldest parts of the year, and upwards of 100+ in the hottest parts of the year.
C126@sh.itjust.works 2 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.
psud@aussie.zone 2 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
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 months ago
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.
psud@aussie.zone 2 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 2 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.
C126@sh.itjust.works 2 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 2 months ago
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 geometrists. It turns out that a base-10 system of angular measurement objectively sucks ass, so the developer wasn’t particularly interested in the number “100”, but in geometrically interesting numbers. He put 180 degrees between the freezing and boiling points of water. (212F - 32F = 180F)
After setting 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.
The calibration point 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. This makes it repeatable, in labs around the world. The stable temperature is the temperature of the brine liquid in which the ice is floating, not the frozen water.
And it wasn’t a “random” brine mixture: it was the coldest and most stable frigorific mixture known to the scientific community.
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 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.