# Fahrenheit

Science 03 Mar '08 16:08
1. 03 Mar '08 16:08
Fahrenheit is the most stupid scale invented by men since creation.

make 32 as the melting point of water, 100 as your own personal temperature, and voila.
Unfortunately the guy had a little fever when he did it, so the average body temperature is really 98F...
What's the sense of this scale? It's the least scientific thing I know... And why the hell some still use it??
2. 03 Mar '08 16:30
The scale defined by Celscius is not so clever either. It is defined as 0 degrees when water boils and 100 degrees when water freezes. Therefore it doesn't measure heat, rather it measures chill. Isn't this cool?
It was Linneus, the famous botanist, who turned the scale to what we have today. He was the clever one! He kept the name of Celcius so now we call it the Celcius thermometer.
Lord Kelvin used the the Celcius scale as a basis for his Kelvin unit.
3. 03 Mar '08 16:40
Originally posted by FabianFnas
The scale defined by Celscius is not so clever either. It is defined as 0 degrees when water boils and 100 degrees when water freezes. Therefore it doesn't measure heat, rather it measures chill. Isn't this cool?
It was Linneus, the famous botanist, who turned the scale to what we have today. He was the clever one! He kept the name of Celcius so now we ...[text shortened]... Celcius thermometer.
Lord Kelvin used the the Celcius scale as a basis for his Kelvin unit.
Chilling and freezing points of water are fixed (at cont pressure, very approximately), different then the average temperature of someone.
Using 0 and 100 makes sense, too... better then 32 and 100.
Who the hell uses 32 as the zero of something??
4. 03 Mar '08 18:04
Chilling and freezing points of water are fixed (at cont pressure, very approximately), different then the average temperature of someone.
Using 0 and 100 makes sense, too... better then 32 and 100.
Who the hell uses 32 as the zero of something??
He didn't. He defined the scale with 0 as a particular temperature, although there's apparently some dispute as to what the temperature was of.
5. 03 Mar '08 18:06
Originally posted by FabianFnas
The scale defined by Celscius is not so clever either. It is defined as 0 degrees when water boils and 100 degrees when water freezes. Therefore it doesn't measure heat, rather it measures chill. Isn't this cool?
It was Linneus, the famous botanist, who turned the scale to what we have today. He was the clever one! He kept the name of Celcius so now we ...[text shortened]... Celcius thermometer.
Lord Kelvin used the the Celcius scale as a basis for his Kelvin unit.
Of course, nowadays the Celsius scale isn't determined by the boiling and freezing point of water. It's determined by the triple point (at 0.01 deg. C), and absolute zero (at -273.15 deg. C).
6. agryson
AGW Hitman
03 Mar '08 21:32
Originally posted by mtthw
He didn't. He defined the scale with 0 as a particular temperature, although there's apparently some dispute as to what the temperature was of.
Well according to him, it was a frigorific mixture, ice, water and ammonium chloride, which was the coldest constant he could get his thermometers at at the time according to my physics teacher back in school.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit
7. coquette
03 Mar '08 21:40
Fahrenheit is the most stupid scale invented by men since creation.

make 32 as the melting point of water, 100 as your own personal temperature, and voila.
Unfortunately the guy had a little fever when he did it, so the average body temperature is really 98F...
What's the sense of this scale? It's the least scientific thing I know... And why the hell some still use it??
saying the Farenheit scale is stupid is like critizing madam curie for taking lousy xrays instead of doing a 10 minute color enhanced 3D MRI.

Farenheit was doing some pretty impressive pioneering work when he set his 0 and 100 values.

On the other hand, that "we" still use the Farenheit scale is just as stupid as using that Lbs Oz Feet Yards and Stones and other nonsensical scales.

In any event, if we want to talk about really stupid, how about horoscopes? how about so called "democratic" elections that have little to do with "merit" and everything to do with oligarchical elitist manipulations masquerading as political science? As if!
8. 03 Mar '08 21:51
Originally posted by coquette
saying the Farenheit scale is stupid is like critizing madam curie for taking lousy xrays instead of doing a 10 minute color enhanced 3D MRI.

Farenheit was doing some pretty impressive pioneering work when he set his 0 and 100 values.

On the other hand, that "we" still use the Farenheit scale is just as stupid as using that Lbs Oz Feet Yards and Stone ...[text shortened]... ng to do with oligarchical elitist manipulations masquerading as political science? As if!
You got the next topic in my agenda: criticize the Lbs, Oz, Feet system ðŸ™‚
Why can't everyone just follow SI system, or at least try to implement it?
By the contrary, there seems to be a nationalist desire to insist in the old ways, like if that system was something cultural...

Horoscopes offer no discussion. (hm... I thought Noah's ark didn't offer discussion too, but I was wrong...)
"Democratic" election are off science, although I agree with you.
Baby Gauss
03 Mar '08 22:17
[b]Why can't everyone just follow SI system, or at least try to implement it? /b]
Casuse sometimes the SI just sucks. Natural units or gaussin units are the way to go if you ask me. But I think that could be hard to follow by non-theoretical physicist.

But seriously my point is that we should do more or less how it is done with physics. Use the appropriate units at the appropriate scale. Of course units that were definied taking into account the average width of the thumb of a fat man, a skinny man, and a medium-sized man should be forgotten as we speak.
10. 03 Mar '08 22:21
Casuse sometimes the SI just sucks. Natural units or gaussin units are the way to go if you ask me. But I think that could be hard to follow by non-theoretical physicist.

But seriously my point is that we should do more or less how it is done with physics. Use the appropriate units at the appropriate scale. Of course units that were definied taking i ...[text shortened]... of the thumb of a fat man, a skinny man, and a medium-sized man should be forgotten as we speak.
Of course I'm not talking about units in theoretical physics , where we can just do c=1 ou h=1 as we please.
I'm talking adopting the MKS or CGS system as world standard.
11. agryson
AGW Hitman
03 Mar '08 22:29
Casuse sometimes the SI just sucks. Natural units or gaussin units are the way to go if you ask me. But I think that could be hard to follow by non-theoretical physicist.

But seriously my point is that we should do more or less how it is done with physics. Use the appropriate units at the appropriate scale. Of course units that were definied taking i ...[text shortened]... of the thumb of a fat man, a skinny man, and a medium-sized man should be forgotten as we speak.
Gaussian units are cgs aren't they? In any case, gaussian is metric right? There was a discussion about this whole metric/imperial thing and there were some engineers on saying that for some reason imperial was more practical for them... I never really understood how...
12. coquette
03 Mar '08 22:31
You got the next topic in my agenda: criticize the Lbs, Oz, Feet system ðŸ™‚
Why can't everyone just follow SI system, or at least try to implement it?
By the contrary, there seems to be a nationalist desire to insist in the old ways, like if that system was something cultural...

Horoscopes offer no discussion. (hm... I thought Noah's ark didn't offer d ...[text shortened]... too, but I was wrong...)
"Democratic" election are off science, although I agree with you.
POLITICAL science . . . .HELLOOOOO
13. 03 Mar '08 22:371 edit
Originally posted by agryson
Gaussian units are cgs aren't they? In any case, gaussian is metric right? There was a discussion about this whole metric/imperial thing and there were some engineers on saying that for some reason imperial was more practical for them... I never really understood how...
yes, gaussian is CGS (cm, gram, second).
I thought the discussion was between CGS/MKS, and engineers wanting MKS ( so they wouldn't have to be hanging with factors 10^5 all the time)
14. 03 Mar '08 22:38
Originally posted by coquette
POLITICAL science . . . .HELLOOOOO
soon someone will be saying psychology is a science...
15. agryson
AGW Hitman
03 Mar '08 22:39
Originally posted by coquette
POLITICAL science . . . .HELLOOOOO
Quasi legitimate, though if we're going to discuss political science as a science, you'll need to make the distinction between democracy and meritocracy, which you did not in your previous post.
A thread on whether the social sciences qualify as real science I think would be a valuable thread. I percieve difficulties in political sciences abilities to provide useful falsifiable hypotheses, but I'm more than willing to be proved wrong on that.