03 Mar 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??
03 Mar 08
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.
03 Mar 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasChilling and freezing points of water are fixed (at cont pressure, very approximately), different then the average temperature of someone.
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.
Using 0 and 100 makes sense, too... better then 32 and 100.
Who the hell uses 32 as the zero of something??
03 Mar 08
Originally posted by serigadoHe 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.
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??
03 Mar 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasOf 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).
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.
03 Mar 08
Originally posted by mtthwWell 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.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit
03 Mar 08
Originally posted by serigadosaying the Farenheit scale is stupid is like critizing madam curie for taking lousy xrays instead of doing a 10 minute color enhanced 3D MRI.
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??
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!
03 Mar 08
Originally posted by coquetteYou got the next topic in my agenda: criticize the Lbs, Oz, Feet system 🙂
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!
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.
03 Mar 08
Originally posted by serigadoCasuse 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.
[b]Why can't everyone just follow SI system, or at least try to implement it? /b]
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.
03 Mar 08
Originally posted by adam warlockOf course I'm not talking about units in theoretical physics , where we can just do c=1 ou h=1 as we please.
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.
I'm talking adopting the MKS or CGS system as world standard.
03 Mar 08
Originally posted by adam warlockGaussian 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...
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.
03 Mar 08
Originally posted by serigadoPOLITICAL science . . . .HELLOOOOO
You got the next topic in my agenda: criticize the Lbs, Oz, Feet system 🙂
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.
03 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by agrysonyes, gaussian is CGS (cm, gram, second).
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...
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)
03 Mar 08
Originally posted by coquetteQuasi 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.
POLITICAL science . . . .HELLOOOOO
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.