# Best temperature scale?



## LAN_deRf_HA (May 17, 2011)

Which scale do you prefer and why? 

I’m largely in favor of Fahrenheit and or Rankine. As anyone who has ever fought over a thermostat knows you can feel the difference between 71 and 73 F. That’s 21.6 and 22.7 C. Just isn’t as neat, takes up more room on displays, and takes longer to say verbally. The Fahrenheit scale seems based around human perception while Celsius is all about water. Considering we have Kelvin and Rankine for scientific needs I don’t really see a use for Celsius. In that same vein if we were ever to unify scientific and creature comfort scales I’d vote for Rankine as it uses the Fahrenheit stepping.


----------



## MRCL (May 17, 2011)

I still have my problems with Fahrenheit. I grew up with Celsius, I can aply it to my regular life, so Celsius is best for me. 

Same goes with metric and imperial measurement. I can see why imperial has its advantages, but I grew up with metric.

So its not really a preference, I'm just used to it. And doing mental math every time I look at a thermometer isn't something I wanna put up with.


----------



## Fourstaff (May 17, 2011)

Its a bit like arguing between miles and kilometres, isnt it? I grew up in a Celsius environment, so its Celsius, along with kilometres. I the world to migrate to Celsius and miles just like we migrated away from vacuum tubes (in my humble opinion).


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 17, 2011)

Fahrenheit's scale is based on the temperature at which water freezes in brine water (meaning it has a buffer between it and normal water freezing--less likely to go negative) and the temperature of Ms. Fahrenheit's mouth.  It was modified a bit since then for accuracy (body temp is 98.6 instead of 100) but the idea is still the same.  And yes, I agree.  For everyday use, Fahrenheit is most practical.


----------



## twilyth (May 17, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> . . . and the temperature of Ms. Fahrenheit's mouth.  It was modified a bit since then for accuracy (body temp is 98.6 instead of 100) . . .



So I guess she was hot. 

Fahrenheit is more convenient since you can feel a 1 degree F difference but you won't really notice anything less than that.  I'm comfortable at about 78F and can feel the difference if it goes a degree higher or lower.  It doesn't make a huge difference to me, but I can feel it.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (May 18, 2011)

I wouldn't get too hung up on what you grew up on. I may prefer Fahrenheit but I also prefer metric. It's like Pluto. I don't give a crap that it isn't a planet. Still don't get why anyone bothers to care... especially when you don't have to deal with it day to day, but I imagine that could be a thread in itself.


----------



## micropage7 (May 18, 2011)

i guess it depends on the usage, celcius is fine, 
 for me im familiar with celcius


----------



## Wile E (May 18, 2011)

Fahrenheit for room temps and baking. Celcius for component temps.


----------



## Wyverex (May 18, 2011)

Well, I prefer Celsius for 2 reasons:
1) I grew up using it
2) 1°C = 1 K, so it makes it a lot easier for scientific use (you just add or subtract 273.15, no dividing or multiplying)

PS There is no *best* scale, but there is a scale that's set as standard  (that'd be Kelvin)


----------



## Frick (May 18, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Which scale do you prefer and why?
> 
> I’m largely in favor of Fahrenheit and or Rankine. As anyone who has ever fought over a thermostat knows you can feel the difference between 71 and 73 F. That’s 21.6 and 22.7 C. Just isn’t as neat, takes up more room on displays, and takes longer to say verbally.



That's because you've used it. I have never used F, and I have never said xx.x. It's not 25.5, it's 25 or 26 depending on how you are. Not like it matters. Most swedish thermometers looked like this (before the digital ones started coming):








It would take a generation to switch from one system to another. I don't think I could ever get used to F as C pretty much sits in my spine.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (May 18, 2011)

If you're rounding you're losing accuracy. It would be one thing if people couldn't perceive it, but they can. You might like 25.5, and you might not like 26. That's about a degrees difference on the Fahrenheit scale. Yes, we fight over having the thermostat at 70 vs 71 on a regular basis at my house. At this point I'm not arguing for a change, people are too lazy to ever change something like that, I'm just saying one makes more sense for a human application.


----------



## Fourstaff (May 18, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> If you're rounding you're losing accuracy. It would be one thing if people couldn't perceive it, but they can. You might like 25.5, and you might not like 26. That's about a degrees difference on the Fahrenheit scale. Yes, we fight over having the thermostat at 70 vs 71 on a regular basis at my house. At this point I'm not arguing for a change, people are too lazy to ever change something like that, I'm just saying one makes more sense for a human application.



Its true that Fahrenheit scale is a bit more "sensitive" than Celsius, but on the other hand if you are used to Celsius you will be fightining over 22 and 23


----------



## Deleted member 3 (May 18, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Fahrenheit's scale is based on the temperature at which water freezes in brine water (meaning it has a buffer between it and normal water freezing--less likely to go negative) and the temperature of Ms. Fahrenheit's mouth.  It was modified a bit since then for accuracy (body temp is 98.6 instead of 100) but the idea is still the same.  And yes, I agree.  For everyday use, Fahrenheit is most practical.



Why is it more practical?


----------



## Fourstaff (May 18, 2011)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Why is it more practical?



Because he is used to it.


----------



## freebie (May 18, 2011)

I've always grown up with Celsius so that's what I use, but if I'm honest Fahrenheit just confuses me because I don't know it very well.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 18, 2011)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Why is it more practical?


1. When discussing weather, negatives are uncommon in fahrenheit while it is common in celcius.
2. It is more precice because it has 180 ticks between water freezing and water boiling as opposed to 100.
3. Anything over 100F can be considered a fever in a human (easy number to remember).
4. The temperature at which water boils really isn't important in every day life because, well, water boils when it boils.  You don't need a themometer to tell you that (this is why it lands on 212F--no one cares).
5. You always have a reference for ~100F with you at all times (your mouth) so you can always calibrate a thermometer using yourself.
6. In fahrenheit, temperatures that are negative are deadly, not just uncomfortable.


----------



## Fourstaff (May 18, 2011)

1. Nothing wrong with negatives, unless you are completely incompetent (and you are not, hence its fine). 
2. Just add decimals and suddenly Celsius is more accurate
3. That is a win for you
4. Enjoy 212F boiling water  100 for boiling and 0 for freezing makes the scale easily replicable, and dividing a line by 180 takes more effort than dividing by 100. 
5. you always have 98.2F for average temp and 36.8C, and since that this fluctuates a bit we can call it 100 or 37, and 37 is convenient too if you have that drilled into your skull. 
6. So? if you are used to Celsius you know that -20C is starting to get deadly.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 18, 2011)

1. They're inconvenient.
2. They're inconvenient.
3. I know. 
4. I've never multiplied or divided Fahrenheit, ever.  There's no reason to.
5. 37 is prime.  100 is not.
6. -20 is inconvenient.


----------



## Fourstaff (May 18, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> 1. They're inconvenient.
> 2. They're inconvenient.
> 3. I know.
> 4. I've never multiplied or divided Fahrenheit, ever.  There's no reason to.
> ...



1. You are not used to them
2. Since that we are usually using whole numbers for weather anyway, moot point. 
4. You don't need to? Good luck with differential equations (when you ever meet them). 
5. What's wrong with that? 100 is mild fever anyway. 
6. Other than in Soviet Russia, you know you will be fine at whatever the temperature is, just a quick glance at the weather forecast and wear the appropriate clothing. Each to its own.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (May 18, 2011)

I vote for Fahrenhheit for more differentiation between temperatures.  I live in the Midwest of the USA; we regularly hit above 100F in the summer, and the cross-over point (-40 is the same no matter what your preferrence) during winter.

From a scientific standpoint Celsius makes far more practical sense.  Unfortunately I was brought up on Fahrenheit.  It makes infinitely more sense to use Fahrenheit where the temperature shifts wildly (read, US).  My experience in Europe was that the temperature shifted gradually, and the need for more differentiation is less pressing.

This is all conjecture though.  Neither scale is better.  I prefer Fahrenheit for daily use, but prefer Celsius for scientific pursuits.


----------



## digibucc (May 18, 2011)

i grew up Fahrenheit and imperial.

i wish i thought in metric naturally, as it simply makes more sense. 
i always have to convert, and hate it.

as for Celsius/Fahrenheit ....i don't really care.  i'm used to Fahrenheit, buy in my mind
being used to something is no excuse.  whichever is more accurate and useful should be
the norm.

i'll leave that debate to you guys, as again, i don't really care.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (May 18, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> 1. When discussing weather, negatives are uncommon in fahrenheit while it is common in celcius.
> 2. It is more precice because it has 180 ticks between water freezing and water boiling as opposed to 100.
> 3. Anything over 100F can be considered a fever in a human (easy number to remember).
> 4. The temperature at which water boils really isn't important in every day life because, well, water boils when it boils.  You don't need a themometer to tell you that (this is why it lands on 212F--no one cares).
> ...



1. And how are negatives not handy?
2. It's not more precise, they're equally precise. Just learn to use decimals if precision is an issue. You'll have to do so anyway in that case. With weather it won't matter, 1C or 1F difference isn't that interesting.
3. And when speaking of temperature fever is the most important thing one would want to know about? 
4. Nor is fever, you have to be autistic to care about things being exactly 0 or 100. Normal people can work with other numbers as well, everybody knows 37C is the human temperature. It's not like you're going to do any math with that number anyway.
5. I've never calibrated a thermometer in my life, nor have I owned one that I could even calibrate. 
6. Care to give me an example of this being useful in practice?


It all comes down to what you've learned to use in the end.


----------



## digibucc (May 18, 2011)

just as far as number 1, ford must not live in the northern hemisphere. it is often -10f to -20f here, in NY (winters, duh  ).


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 18, 2011)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> This is all conjecture though.  Neither scale is better.  I prefer Fahrenheit for daily use, but prefer Celsius for scientific pursuits.


Same.  Celcius is more practical for scientific applications (due to conversion factors) but not climate/cooking/health (the things we deal with daily).




DanTheBanjoman said:


> 1. And how are negatives not handy?
> 2. It's not more precise, they're equally precise. Just learn to use decimals if precision is an issue. You'll have to do so anyway in that case. With weather it won't matter, 1C or 1F difference isn't that interesting.
> 3. And when speaking of temperature fever is the most important thing one would want to know about?
> 4. Nor is fever, you have to be autistic to care about things being exactly 0 or 100. Normal people can work with other numbers as well, everybody knows 37C is the human temperature. It's not like you're going to do any math with that number anyway.
> ...


1. When are they?  They become a PITA when calculating differences.
2. Whole numbers, not decimals.  Decimals, like negatives, are inconvinent.  The only occassion where I've seen decimals used in Fahrenheit is in human thermometers.  In order to get the same precision as a Fahrenheit themometer with one decimal point, you'd have to use two decimal points in Celcius.
3. In daily life, yes.  104F+ fever is deadly.
4. It's easy to remember.  37C is not unless you were raised on Celcius.  I didn't know that.
5. It can happen.  The point is, its harder to get water to boil than stick a probe in your mouth. XD
6. If the temperature is negative, you better not go out unless you got at least a quarter tank of fuel in your car and you better have thermo blankets and other gear in case you get stranded.  Failing to could easily mean death.


----------



## digibucc (May 18, 2011)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> This is all conjecture though.  Neither scale is better.  I prefer Fahrenheit for daily use, but prefer Celsius for scientific pursuits.





FordGT90Concept said:


> Same.  Celcius is more practical for scientific applications but not climate/cooking/health (the things we deal with daily).



i wish there were an objective better then, as the entire world using different measurements
seems messy imo.  i am inclined to use whatever methods scientists use, even if it is outside
of my natural instinct or understanding


----------



## Fourstaff (May 18, 2011)

/starting a flame war
You know, if Americans are not dumb/lazy enough to learn the metric system we will not be having this conversation. Everyone else is using the metric, and you don't hear them wanting to go to imperial, do you? Whereas there are enough Americans who would rather use metric.


----------



## Frick (May 18, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> 4. It's easy to remember.  37C is not unless you were raised on Celcius.  I didn't know that.
> 6. If the temperature is negative, you better not go out unless you got at least a quarter tank of fuel in your car and you better have thermo blankets and other gear in case you get stranded.  Failing to could easily mean death.



4. Which is the entire point. You're used to fahrenheit, so it's easy to remember. I know it's 37C and I consider it easy to remember.
6. BS. -F is not dangerous until you get down to the -20s. This is also about upbringing. It's also confusing to me as 100F ~ 37C, but -10F ~ -23C. Makes no sense to me, C scales properly.


----------



## Bo$$ (May 18, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> /starting a flame war
> You know, if Americans are not dumb/lazy enough to learn the metric system we will not be having this conversation. Everyone else is using the metric, and you don't hear them wanting to go to imperial, do you? Whereas there are enough Americans who would rather use metric.



^These^ are wise words.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication#Conversion_process
i can see that most of this is shit, as it said that in the UK we use imperial (which is utter BS) until I fixed it. But only a few countries still use the old fashion system.

It seems illogical to measure temperature in 2 ways one for sciecne and the other on a daily basis. If say 80% of the planet can survive without the joy of Fahrenheit then, I think those who use it are being damn stubborn as there *ARE NO ADVANTAGES of using it*


----------



## Peter1986C (May 18, 2011)

I have read replies that assume that water boils at 100C, but this is not always the case AFAIK. In elevated areas, were air pressure is lower, water actually boils at a higher temperature.


----------



## Sihastru (May 18, 2011)

Celsius all the way, "F" makes no sense to me... Also the metric system, I don't understand miles and gallons... kilometers and liters are things I can relate to... Can you imagine, I don't even get the jokes in movies when they make reference to the size of the male reproductive organ and they say it's x inches. What in the world is an _inch_? Is 12 inches a good size or a bad size?

These things are imprinted on you the moment you open your eyes after birth. It's not about which one is better or worse, it's about the place you live and the place you had your education. When you drive you either see miles or kilometers, when you fill the gas tank is either gallons or liters... it's almost never both. It's not like _black and white_, it's like _green and orange_.

From all the temperatures scales in this world, I think *Kelvin* makes the most sense. C/F are based on human perception of the environment. Also K is the only temperature scale that does not have the word _degree_ in it. It's that absolute.


----------



## Bo$$ (May 18, 2011)

Chevalr1c said:


> I have read replies that assume that water boils at 100C, but this is not always the case AFAIK. *In elevated areas, were air pressure is lower, water actually boils at a higher temperature*.



Lower Temp you mean


----------



## Wyverex (May 18, 2011)

Chevalr1c said:


> I have read replies that assume that water boils at 100C, but this is not always the case AFAIK. In elevated areas, were air pressure is lower, water actually boils at a higher temperature.


Both ice melting and water boiling temperatures vary due to, among other things, air pressure (as you already mentioned, although a bit wrongly  ) and water _purity_ (added substances decrease the melting point and increase the boiling point)

The base for the Celsius scale is pure (distilled) water under _standard atmospheric pressure_ (101325 Pa)


----------



## Widjaja (May 18, 2011)

I was brought up understanding degC so I can interpret what temperature I should feel a lot more accurately.

There are a few of them I prefer just due to everyday use.

Liters over Gallons, kilometers over Miles, kg over of pounds.

If I was brought up in the US I am sure it would all be around the other way.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (May 18, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> /starting a flame war
> You know, if Americans are not dumb/lazy enough to learn the metric system we will not be having this conversation. Everyone else is using the metric, and you don't hear them wanting to go to imperial, do you? Whereas there are enough Americans who would rather use metric.



Consider the war joined.  If you're going to rip on Americans consider:

Britain stands firmly against the Euro, despite being part of the European Union.
Miles are still on highway labels in Britain (as of early 2010).
The whole of the European Union, with the exception of Britain, driver on the right hand side of the road.

It takes about 0.001 seconds for a person to find something stupid in a country if they really put a little bit of effort in.  I'll take my Fahrenheit stupid any day of the week.  I'm not proud of the people in my country who have decided to create 1.5 trillion in debt for me to deal with once they retire.  There is no country without fault, just those whose fault you can deal with.


----------



## mlee49 (May 18, 2011)

Kelvin

Absolute Zero homeys


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 18, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> /starting a flame war
> You know, if Americans are not dumb/lazy enough to learn the metric system we will not be having this conversation. Everyone else is using the metric, and you don't hear them wanting to go to imperial, do you? Whereas there are enough Americans who would rather use metric.


We use what is practical for the application.  We don't use what some group scientist ramthroated through politics.

Celcius isn't practical for anything unless you deal with the boiling and freezing temperatures of water on a daily basis.  Kelvin is only practical if you constantly deal with temperatures close to absolute zero.  Fahrenheit is practical for weather and body temperature (relevant to every day needs).  I wonder why the rest of the world isn't using Fahrenheit because, for people not boiling water or playing with liquid hydrogen on a daily basis, it makes the most sense.


----------



## digibucc (May 18, 2011)

and anyone who starts a flame war over temperature measurement needs to take a long hard look at themselves.

i'm american, and i can find many many more important things to hate about my country than the imperial measurement system.


----------



## Fourstaff (May 18, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> We use what is practical for the application.  We don't use what some group scientist ramthroated through politics.



Enjoy your Imperial system then, while everyone else is using metric. Starting metric is like getting a child to have an injection: the benefits cannot be seen by the person enjoying the benefit. Which is why America is in such a deepshit: they refuse to take the medicine, and the politicians don't have the balls/will to force the medicine down the throat.


----------



## Peter1986C (May 18, 2011)

Sihastru said:


> What in the world is an inch? Is 12 inches a good size or a bad size?



An *International* inch is 2.54 centimetres*
Though I couldn't find the length in metrics of the Imperial and US inch.

And 12 inches is a size one cannot apply to a human penis, because (asuming international inches) 12 x 2.54 = 30.48 cm. That's a horse's thing we are talking about! 

----------------------------------------------
*Americans, I know you think that this is a silly spelling and you have a good point. Yet, please don't start to moan that it "should be" _centimeters_, because I am not allowed to take only the good points of both US and Imperial spelling and mix them. So if I write "realise" (instead of US "realize") I have to be consistent and write "centimetres" instead of the more sensible "centimeters"


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 18, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> Enjoy your Imperial system...


I do, I really do. 




Fourstaff said:


> Starting metric is like getting a child to have an injection: the benefits cannot be seen by the person enjoying the benefit. Which is why America is in such a deepshit: they refuse to take the medicine, and the politicians don't have the balls/will to force the medicine down the throat.


Computers defeated the purpose of metric, really.  You can almost instanteously convert any unit into the format which is most practical rather than which is most convertable.  As such, it makes sense to use the units which best describe the situation, not the one that best allows you to convert between subunit types.


----------



## Fourstaff (May 18, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Computers defeated the purpose of metric, really.  You can almost instanteously convert any unit into the format which is most practical rather than which is most convertable.  As such, it makes sense to use the units which best describe the situation, not the one that best allows you to convert between subunit types.



Lets consider a hypothetical situation that you are brought up in a metric system. Would you have gone to Fahrenheit? But scientists brought up in a Fahrenheit environment more often than not switches to metric, and is forced to use both because the tv wouldn't show temps in celsius and his work is more convenient in celsius. Now lets consider that fisherman/farmer/joe etc over there who is brought up in a celsius environment. Would he willingly change to fahrenheit because certain values are more easily remembered? I don't think so, given that he is already so proficient in celsius measures. We can clearly see that moving to celsius is beneficial to some, while moving to fahrenheit will only bring marginal benefits, if at all.


----------



## Frick (May 18, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Celcius isn't practical for anything unless you deal with the boiling and freezing temperatures of water on a daily basis.  Kelvin is only practical if you constantly deal with temperatures close to absolute zero.  Fahrenheit is practical for weather and body temperature (relevant to every day needs).  I wonder why the rest of the world isn't using Fahrenheit because, for people not boiling water or playing with liquid hydrogen on a daily basis, it makes the most sense.



All about upbringing. I think celsius is an excellent way to measure body and weather temps. If you were swedish instead you'd think the same way. F makes zero sense to me no matter how much I use it.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (May 18, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> Lets consider a hypothetical situation that you are brought up in a metric system. Would you have gone to Fahrenheit?



The question is which system is better, not what the global bias is for a temperature scale.  The fact is that you don't like Fahrenheit.  Fine.  The second you start telling me I, or by extension my country, am stupid is the second I become far harder to talk to without fiercely defending my way of life.  You have gone about slandering a way of life, not a measurement system.



Frick said:


> All about upbringing. I think celsius is an excellent way to measure body and weather temps. If you were swedish instead you'd think the same way. F makes zero sense to me no matter how much I use it.



This is a fair criticism, upbringing does play a role in acceptance.  You say 24C is nice, I say 76F is nice.  It's the same thing.  The second someone comes forward with a scale that makes real sense (Rankine or Kelvin) we both think they're natives of Venus.  It's a matter of opinion, which is entirely informed by personal experince.


----------



## cheesy999 (May 18, 2011)

Bo$$ said:


> i can see that most of this is shit, as it said that in the UK we use imperial (which is utter BS) until I fixed it. But only a few countries still use the old fashion system.



we use a mix of imperial and metric actually - look at the cars being measured in miles per gallon, road being measured in miles, and most older style houses are all built in imperial, infact most rulers and thermometers have both imperial and metric on them for a reason, one i thing i must point out though is that the uk imperial measurements for volume (along with some other things) are different to the US

UK = distances is imperial or metric (miles and cm), volumes in imperial or metric (pints and litre), weights in imperial or metric (stone and kgram), energy in imperial or metric(kcal/joules) etc


----------



## zehpavora (May 18, 2011)

Let me join you, I find this discussion rather amazing.

The best temperature scale is the one that represents temperature the best way possible.

So, which one wins? None.
Why is that? Very simple, really. Every scale has its uses.

Celcius is good because of a steady progression in temperature.

Fahrenheit is good because it (supposedly) has better temperature marks and does not use decimals (that often, you can use in calculations).

Kelvin is good because it is the International Standard, only works with positive values and it is easy to convert to and from.

There is no way of defining the best scale since it is all about the one you have better affinity with. We use Celcius here in Brasil and I used Fahrenheit when I lived in the US.

 I find it hard to use Fahrenheit since I'm used to "logical" progressions in temperature, but it seems that, when in times of great temperature changes, such as winter-spring, Fahrenheit is more useful than Celcius.

This discussion will go on forever if you guys don't realize that it's all about personal choices.


----------



## Fourstaff (May 18, 2011)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> The question is which system is better, not what the global bias is for a temperature scale.  The fact is that you don't like Fahrenheit.  Fine.  The second you start telling me I, or by extension my country, am stupid is the second I become far harder to talk to without fiercely defending my way of life.  You have gone about slandering a way of life, not a measurement system.



That is not slander, I feel that people are not looking "from the other perspective" enough. My apologies if I did cross a line. I do not detest Fahrenheit, but I do find that Celsius is the better system and Fahrenheit cannot be defended in almost any way other than "I am familiar/comfortable with this scale". At the end of the day, we can argue forever but nothing will change; I will continue to use and support Celsius, while you will do the same for Fahrenheit.


----------



## erocker (May 18, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> Enjoy your Imperial system then, while everyone else is using metric. Starting metric is like getting a child to have an injection: the benefits cannot be seen by the person enjoying the benefit. Which is why America is in such a deepshit: they refuse to take the medicine, and the politicians don't have the balls/will to force the medicine down the throat.



I don't know about the rest of Americans but I as an American find boundless enjoyment in people not from America being so concerned with my country. A country where Ferenheit and the Imperial system are king. It works and works well. Don't like it? Turn off your TV, or start paying attention to your own country as I don't see how it matters one bit or another. They are units of measurement and nothing more. The ends justify the means no matter what means you are going by for measurement. I could care less about some other countries perspective on measurement. If I would move to a country that uses a different form of measurement than my current country I would use that. It makes zero difference.



Fourstaff said:


> You know, if Americans are not dumb/lazy enough to learn the metric system we will not be having this conversation



...and get over yourself please. Every American I know, knows both systems. Stop being dumb/lazy and find out the truth before opening your mouth.

Now where's the "which side of the road should we drive on" thread? It makes a big difference and is very important to science!


----------



## Solaris17 (May 18, 2011)

I use kelvins in my daily life C and F are small time.


----------



## cheesy999 (May 18, 2011)

cheesy999 said:


> we use a mix of imperial and metric actually - look at the cars being measured in miles per gallon, road being measured in miles, and most older style houses are all built in imperial, infact most rulers and thermometers have both imperial and metric on them for a reason, one i thing i must point out though is that the uk imperial measurements for volume (along with some other things) are different to the US
> 
> UK = distances is imperial or metric (miles and cm), volumes in imperial or metric (pints and litre), weights in imperial or metric (stone and kgram), energy in imperial or metric(kcal/joules) etc





erocker said:


> I don't know about the rest of Americans but I as an American find boundless enjoyment in people not from America being so concerned with my country. A country where Ferenheit and the Imperial system are king. It works and works well. Don't like it? Turn off your TV, or start paying attention to your own country as I don't see how it matters one bit or another. They are units of measurement and nothing more. The ends justify the means no matter what means you are going by for measurement.



you'd be suprised how many people abroad still use imperial, i buy pints of milk and 1/4 pound burgers, and people drive their cars miles


----------



## Peter1986C (May 18, 2011)

digibucc said:


> i'm american, and i can find many many more important things to hate about my country than the imperial measurement system.



True, though on a sidenote, your nation does not use the Imperial system but US Contemporary (if I remember the name right). A US gallon, for example, is not equal to an imperial gallon; and the same is true for tons. There may be other examples, but I don't know much about either of those systems. I grew up with metric and Celsius, at secondary school Kelvin got introduced but that scale is meant for science of the math/physics/chemistry/etc. category and that's not quite my field.


----------



## cheesy999 (May 18, 2011)

Chevalr1c said:


> True, though on a sidenote, your nation does not use the Imperial system but US Contemporary (if I remember the name right). A US gallon, for example, is not equal to an imperial gallon;



same with pints and weights


----------



## Wile E (May 18, 2011)

Bo$$ said:


> ^These^ are wise words.....
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication#Conversion_process
> i can see that most of this is shit, as it said that in the UK we use imperial (which is utter BS) until I fixed it. But only a few countries still use the old fashion system.
> ...



No disadvantages for us F users either. Moot point.


----------



## Bo$$ (May 18, 2011)

exactly, hence why you guys aren't changing, but what I'm saying is persuading others to use it is not a great idea


----------



## trickson (May 18, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Which scale do you prefer and why?
> 
> I’m largely in favor of Fahrenheit and or Rankine. As anyone who has ever fought over a thermostat knows you can feel the difference between 71 and 73 F. That’s 21.6 and 22.7 C. Just isn’t as neat, takes up more room on displays, and takes longer to say verbally. The Fahrenheit scale seems based around human perception while Celsius is all about water. Considering we have Kelvin and Rankine for scientific needs I don’t really see a use for Celsius. In that same vein if we were ever to unify scientific and creature comfort scales I’d vote for Rankine as it uses the Fahrenheit stepping.



The best one is the one you were taught in school .


----------



## Fourstaff (May 18, 2011)

trickson said:


> The best one is the one you were taught in school .



Its fine when they are easily convertible, but when you are doing polar coordinates, intrinsic coordinates and cartesian coordinates you need to get it right the first time round.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (May 18, 2011)

mlee49 said:


> Kelvin
> 
> Absolute Zero homeys



Rankine also starts at absolute zero. You know this whole thing was just about what makes more sense, not about what you're accustomed too. It was never meant to as a hey lets all convert to one standard thing. These arguments are just impractical...


----------



## Kreij (May 19, 2011)

The US methods of denoting measurements are far superior.
In accuracy? no. In calculation? no.
In making exagerated colloquialisms that sound awesome instead of anal? YES.

You missed by 1.609 kilometers <-- anal
You missed by a mile <-- awesome

I can't lift it, it weighs 907.2 kilograms. <-- anal
I can't lift it, it weighs a ton <-- awesome

It's fricking 37.777 degress <-- anal
It's fricking 100 degrees <-- awesome

At the party we ate 32 kilograms of sausages <-- anal
At the party we ate a shitload* of brats. <-- awesome
(*shitload is a valid measurement understood by everyone in WI)

People can discuss, argue, debate, whine, moan or pontificate all they want about measurement systems, but here in WI we have a shitload of more important things to worry about.


----------



## trickson (May 19, 2011)

Kreij said:


> The US methods of denoting measurements are far superior.
> In accuracy? no. In calculation? no.
> In making exagerated colloquialisms that sound awesome instead of anal? YES.
> 
> ...



Now that is what I'm talkin about !


----------



## Kreij (May 19, 2011)

I even brought another avenue of science into the thread ... linguistics !!


----------



## Conti027 (May 19, 2011)

Fahrenheit and Si (International System of Units)


----------



## Wile E (May 19, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> Its fine when they are easily convertible, but when you are doing polar coordinates, intrinsic coordinates and cartesian coordinates you need to get it right the first time round.



I call a simple equation easily convertible. Another moot point.

None of them are better, just different.


----------



## Frederik S (May 30, 2011)

F is bad because it is not referenced to anything that makes sense. Converting F = C * 5/9 - 32...

It is just as silly as the inch system. The mix of integers with fractions is slightly retarded compared to just using a normal precision system.

Example:
US vs. SI
1 1/4  + 2 2/32 +  6 8/64 = 151/16 = 9 7/16 
1.25 + 2.0625 + 6.125 = 9.4375


----------



## qubit (May 30, 2011)

The best? Definitely degrees C or Kelvin. It makes much more sense and has been adopted by the scientific community worldwide. Fahrenheit is the old outdated imperial measurement and really should be discarded.


----------



## Fourstaff (May 30, 2011)

Probably should let this thread die already, no matter which scale is "better" if you are comfortable with one you are highly unlikely to change to another. Brings back memories when my grandmother (who had a stall selling farm produce) used to tell me she used 3 different weight system (pounds, kg and a local scale) and 2 different currencies (British pounds and local dollars) for veg, fruits, chicken and ducks. And she is illiterate. We are regressing as a race. Sad but true.


----------



## Wile E (May 30, 2011)

Frederik S said:


> F is bad because it is not referenced to anything that makes sense. Converting F = C * 5/9 - 32...
> 
> It is just as silly as the inch system. The mix of integers with fractions is slightly retarded compared to just using a normal precision system.
> 
> ...



Since when must you mix integers and fractions in the F scale? Converting from C to F also requires fractions. Besides, fractions are no less accurate or precise than decimals. Some people just have a hard time thinking in fractions. I don't. It's easy. Instead of thinking c*(5/9), I just think (C*5)/9. Certainly better than multiplying by .5(repeating forever), where you have to eventually round one of those 5's to a 6, and actually be less accurate than using the fraction to begin with. Yet another moot point made in this thread.

No scale is better than the other for all things, and that's the only simple fact in this thread. Some are better at certain things, but not at others.


----------



## Frederik S (May 30, 2011)

I am not saying that F is inferior because of the conversion to C, just that the SI-system is more rational when it comes to a multitude of different aspects. 

F is odd because it is referenced to the average core temperature of the human body instead of something that is more general like the freezing point of water, and boiling point. 

SI is a less complicated system with more rational references. Of course C is not a SI unit like K, but it is still valid because it has the same base increments and K and can therefore be converted by simply adding or subtracting 273.15.


----------



## Wile E (May 30, 2011)

Frederik S said:


> I am not saying that F is inferior because of the conversion to C, just that the SI-system is more rational when it comes to a multitude of different aspects.
> 
> F is odd because it is referenced to the average core temperature of the human body instead of something that is more general like the freezing point of water, and boiling point.
> 
> SI is a less complicated system with more rational references. Of course C is not a SI unit like K, but it is still valid because it has the same base increments and K and can therefore be converted by simply adding or subtracting 273.15.



It's still just a matter of perspective. I already know the freezing and boiling points in bit F and C, so again, another moot point. Freezing being 0 in C is no better than it being 32 in F. Once you learn it, you learn it, regardless of what number it is. None of this makes one system better than the other.


----------



## MilkyWay (Jun 11, 2011)

Celsius and the Metric system have been adopted by most of the planet, i would say that was a big advantage for using those systems. Metric uses decimals right? Imperial doesn't.

Also you get the Metric Ton which is 1000kg.

International System of Units uses kelvin not celsius.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 11, 2011)

Frederik S said:


> F is bad because it is not referenced to anything that makes sense.


The human body and climate--the two things we deal with daily on this planet.  Tell me, when's the last time you had to get the temperature of frozen or boiling water?




Frederik S said:


> The mix of integers with fractions is slightly retarded compared to just using a normal precision system.


1/3 will always be more accurate than 0.33333333333333333333333333333 to infinite.  Fractional notation is often preferred because no rounding is required.

"Nine and seven sixteenths" is also easier to say (and understand) than "nine and four thousand, three hundred seventy five ten-thousandths."


----------



## inferKNOX (Jun 11, 2011)

What the majority of the world uses, metric; in this case, Celsius.
Because the system is well structured, km= 1000m, dm = 0.1m, cm = 0.01m, mm = 0.001m, etc.

EDIT:


FordGT90Concept said:


> "Nine and seven sixteenths" is also easier to say (and understand) than "nine and four thousand, three hundred seventy five ten-thousandths."


LOLwut?! Who on this planet expresses decimals like that?
If your numbers are right, "Zero comma nine, four, three, seven, five," is how it would be said by normal earthlings!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 11, 2011)

inferKNOX said:


> What the majority of the world uses, metric; in this case, Celsius.
> Because the system is well structured, km= 1000m, dm = 0.1m, cm = 0.01m, mm = 0.001m, etc.


Majority never necessarily means better.  All it implies is a ramthroat occured in the past where the people in power decided for the common folk what is best without any thought to the rammifications.  Virtually everyone that knows Farenheit has a respectable grasp of Celcius too.  Most people that know Celcius know little of Farenheit beyond that it exists (as demonstrated by serveral posts in this thread).  I like to have many tools in my chest so I can use which best fits what is being measured.

Just because it is base 10 doesn't mean it is practical.  That means nothing more than ease of converting between unit types which actually doesn't happen all that often except in rare, scientific circumstances.





inferKNOX said:


> LOLwut?! Who on this planet expresses decimals like that?


That is how that number is pronounced in decimal form.



inferKNOX said:


> If your numbers are right, "Zero comma nine, four, three, seven, five," is how it would be said by normal earthlings!


And you said it wrong.  You turned 9.4375 into 0.94375.  Fail.

Regardless, it is still substantially longer than "nine and seven sixteenths" and it is still faster to say "nine and four thousand, three hundred seventy-five ten-thousandths" than pronouncing each punctuation and number in sequence with required pauses (as dictated by your commas).

Fractions are a beautiful thing.  The only reason why we moved away from them is because computers aren't so great at handling fractions (they can, but not natively).


----------



## inferKNOX (Jun 11, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Majority never necessarily means better.  All it implies is a ramthroat occured in the past where the people in power decided for the common folk what is best without any thought to the rammifications.  Virtually everyone that knows Farenheit has a respectable grasp of Celcius too.  Most people that know Celcius know little of Farenheit beyond that it exists (as demonstrated by serveral posts in this thread).  I like to have many tools in my chest so I can use which best fits what is being measured.
> 
> Just because it is base 10 doesn't mean it is practical.  That means nothing more than ease of converting between unit types which actually doesn't happen all that often except in rare, scientific circumstances.
> 
> ...



Answering from top to bottom:
Things that work well are normally standardised, that's how our world progresses.
How many different systems people apply is irrelevant, the natural tendency is to use what works.
If a full toolchest is what you want, why are you arguing?

Base 10 means efficiency, and ease of converting is the whole point!
I don't know what constitutes rare scientific circumstances to you, but I know that if my food in the freezer is below 0°C, it's frozen, the the weather is below 0°C, there's ground-frost, if weather is 50°C (temp at which all cells die), plants will be dying, if my cpu is hot enough to make water boil, (100°C) it's too hot. No scientific, maybe, since our universe is made up of science, but rare, I don't think so.

Not in the non-American part of this planet.

Fail? Really? Wow, you stumped me with that ultra-valid point.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 11, 2011)

inferKNOX said:


> Things that work well are normally standardised, that's how our world progresses.


NIST holds all the standard for the USA.  Official conversions are here.



inferKNOX said:


> If a full toolchest is what you want, why are you arguing?


Fahrenheit is _better_ than Celsius for common folk in their everyday routines.




inferKNOX said:


> I don't know what constitutes rare scientific circumstances to you, but I know that if my food in the freeze is below *32 F*, it's frozen, the the weather is below *32 F*, there's ground-frost, if weather is *122 F (but your statment is false)* (temp at which all cells die), plants will be dying, if my cpu is hot enough to make water boil *(212 F)*, it's too hot. No scientific, maybe, since our universe is made up of science, but rare, I don't think so.


Fixed.


----------



## inferKNOX (Jun 11, 2011)

That's your problem; sorry, but the world is made of up more than just America.


----------



## qubit (Jun 11, 2011)

inferKNOX said:


> That's your problem; sorry, but the world is made of up more than just America.



I totally agree with you that the metric system is way better than any imperial system. People should make the effort to get used to it. The difficulty in acclimatizing to it by 'ordinary' non-scientist, non-technical people should not stunt progress. If it wasn't for scientists, we'd still be in the damned stone age today  so yes, scientists should set the standard.

I have to make a confession here myself: here in England, they use miles per hour to measure speed, almost exclusively. I feel totally comfortable with it, too. I know just how fast 60mph is. But 100kph? It's the same speed, but I have to do that multiplication by 1.6 each time.

However, if the country were to have a referendum on a wholesale move over to kph measurement, like in the rest of Europe, I'd vote for it without hesitation and I'd have the speedo dial in my car replaced to reflect this. It fits in with the rest of the metric measurement system, such as metres, millimeters etc, so it's a no-brainer.


----------



## cheesy999 (Jun 11, 2011)

qubit said:


> I totally agree with you that the metric system is way better than any imperial system. People should make the effort to get used to it. The difficulty in acclimatizing to it by 'ordinary' non-scientist, non-technical people should not stunt progress. If it wasn't for scientists, we'd still be in the damned stone age today  so yes, scientists should set the standard.
> 
> I have to make a confession here myself: here in England, they use miles per hour to measure speed, almost exclusively. I feel totally comfortable with it, too. I know just how fast 60mph is. But 100kph? It's the same speed, but I have to do that multiplication by 1.6 each time.
> 
> However, if the country were to have a referendum on a wholesale move over to kph measurement, like in the rest of Europe, I'd vote for it without hesitation and I'd have the speedo dial in my car replaced to reflect this. It fits in with the rest of the metric measurement system, such as metres, millimeters etc, so it's a no-brainer.



i wouldn't, as much as km fit in i still think in MPH, also Think of how bad the speed limit will be if we go to metric, they'll either end up as really odd number like 97.8 or the government will use it as an opportunity to lower the speed limits by rounding down the numbers


----------



## inferKNOX (Jun 11, 2011)

Sihastru said:


> From all the temperatures scales in this world, I think *Kelvin* makes the most sense. C/F are based on human perception of the environment. Also K is the only temperature scale that does not have the word _degree_ in it. It's that absolute.



Celsius is simply the range within the Kelvin scale that clearly demarcates the phase change temperatures of water, the most essential resource to human survival, & also doubles as an approximate range within which our atmospheric conditions typically range, not a perception.


----------



## qubit (Jun 11, 2011)

cheesy999 said:


> i wouldn't, as much as km fit in i still think in MPH, also Think of how bad the speed limit will be if we go to metric, they'll either end up as really odd number like 97.8 or the government will use it as an opportunity to lower the speed limits by rounding down the numbers



Yeah, you're right there, but that's politics meddling with it, which taints the science. 

You can see how this will go, can't you? All the speed limit signs will stay the same, but mean KPH instead. So max speed on the motorway will then be 70KPH or 43.75MPH. Yes, that would be 'progress'.  I'm sure the anti-car brigade would have a field day.


----------



## inferKNOX (Jun 11, 2011)

Well I can tell you guys that in countries that use km/h, the average speed limit on wide roads is 100km/h, on highways and open roads, it's 120km/h.
Suburban main roads are 80km/h and inner city and minor roads are 60km/h.
Simple enough to remember I think in increments of 20km/h.


----------



## DaveK (Jun 11, 2011)

I use Celsius, because it's more convenient to me as it's used everywhere I go. None of this, negatives are complicated crap lol


----------



## St.Alia-Of-The-Knife (Jun 11, 2011)

all countries except united states have celcius and km
why is the US so stuborn!


----------



## cheesy999 (Jun 11, 2011)

St.Alia-Of-The-Knife said:


> all countries except united states have celcius and km
> why is the US so stuborn!



not true, 2 other countries still use only imperial and countries like UK, Canada, Ireland, India still use some imperial measurement


----------



## Frederik S (Jun 11, 2011)

The scientific way to express a decimal number is 9 dot or comma depending on whether you are using US or EU decimal separator which  is another issue, you never express it by the thousands of anything any more. You can really reverse that completely just take something that is not a fraction that makes sense like 9.4374. 

And in C the average body temperature is 37. Which is +-1 degree C of peoples actual temperature. The body temperature varies a lot during the day and no two people have the same core temperature. The F temperature systems only logical reference is to a variable which is not rational.


----------



## Frick (Jun 11, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Fahrenheit is _better_ than Celsius for common folk in their everyday routines.



I've said this in the thread already: you feel that way because you're used to it, you grew up with it. C is not better than F or the other way around, it's all about upbringing. If you were from Sweden you would be extremely comfortable with using C and F would be confusing at first.

I do think it would be useful to have a proper global system though.


----------



## twilyth (Jun 11, 2011)

St.Alia-Of-The-Knife said:


> all countries except united states have celcius and km
> why is the US so stuborn!


That's just how we roll.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 11, 2011)

Frick said:


> I've said this in the thread already: you feel that way because you're used to it, you grew up with it. C is not better than F or the other way around, it's all about upbringing. If you were from Sweden you would be extremely comfortable with using C and F would be confusing at first.
> 
> I do think it would be useful to have a proper global system though.


The most frequent place we hear about temperatures is in climate.  The highest recorded temperature on Earth was 136° Fahrenheit (58° Celsius) and the lowest was -128.6° Fahrenheit (-89.6° Celsius).  The range of Fahrenheit was 264.6° and the range of Celsius was 147.6°--almost double the resolution at no extra charge.

My point by this is that when a temperature is given in Fahrenheit and Celsius without decimal points, Fahrenheit will always be more precise than Celsius.  It's like measuring the length of something using decameters instead of meters with no decimal points--decameter will always be more precise.

That is why it is better and always will be better for everyday use, regardless of whether or not it is "confusing."


----------



## Frick (Jun 11, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The most frequent place we hear about temperatures is in climate.  The highest recorded temperature on Earth was 136° Fahrenheit (58° Celsius) and the lowest was -128.6° Fahrenheit (-89.6° Celsius).  The range of Fahrenheit was 264.6° and the range of Celsius was 147.6°--almost double the resolution at no extra charge.
> 
> My point by this is that when a temperature is given in Fahrenheit and Celsius without decimal points, Fahrenheit will always be more precise than Celsius.  It's like measuring the length of something using decameters instead of meters with no decimal points--decameter will always be more precise.
> 
> That is why it is better and always will be better for everyday use, regardless of whether or not it is "confusing."  A tool is only as good as the individual that wields it.



I think we have talked about this before. When you need to be that precise you're using decimals anyway. In everyday use you don't have to be that precise. THere was this argument that you can feel the difference between 70 and 71F which translates to 21.111111etc and 21.6666 C. But you don't have to be that precise, you say it's 21 or 22 C.

And the most common thermometer in sweden is the one that looks like this:







You glance at it and say it's -20.

Also, local temperatures vary a lot from place to place. Drive down a road with lots and ups and down and you can have a 10C difference on two spots pretty close to each other. Even those digital meters are true only for the spot the sensor is.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 11, 2011)

Which also proves my point (note how many more ticks are on the Fahrenheit side):





When you compare 10 degrees in Celcius, you're comparing 18 degrees in Fahrenheit.


----------



## Frick (Jun 11, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Which also proves my point (note how many more ticks are on the Fahrenheit side):
> http://inel.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/miamimuseumofsciencethermometer.gif?w=550



It still does not matter, to me anyway. And you still have the location thing. You say it's -10 outside, but that's only true for the spot so it's still not that precise. As soon as you move away you only "kinda" know the temperature.

And that picture is unfair, the only marked the tens on the celsius side.


----------



## cheesy999 (Jun 11, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Which also proves my point (note how many more ticks are on the Fahrenheit side):
> http://inel.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/miamimuseumofsciencethermometer.gif?w=550
> 
> When you compare 10 degrees in Celcius, you're comparing 18 degrees in Fahrenheit.



notice how you need 3 digits to display Fahrenheit numbers above ~38'c, if your going to use 3 digit just use Celsius with a decimal, its no harder to remember, its still 3 digits, and Celsius to 1dp is more accurate the Fahrenheit


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 11, 2011)

Frick said:


> And that picture is unfair, the only marked the tens on the celsius side.


It's apples to apples.  10s on Celsius and 10s on Fahrenheit--same range real temperature wise.




cheesy999 said:


> notice how you need 3 digits to display Fahrenheit numbers above ~38'c, if your going to use 3 digit just use Celsius with a decimal, its no harder to remember, its still 3 digits, and Celsius to 1dp is more accurate the Fahrenheit


All digital temperature guages in the USA are capable of displaying three digits in these parts.  888 LEDs with a maximum display range of 999 to -99.  Works great.


----------



## qubit (Jun 11, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Which also proves my point (note how many more ticks are on the Fahrenheit side):
> http://inel.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/miamimuseumofsciencethermometer.gif?w=550
> 
> When you compare 10 degrees in Celcius, you're comparing 18 degrees in Fahrenheit.



So, F is higher resolution then. I never thought of that before, although I have seen thermometers like that.  Although I would still use C for the reasons I've said, I agree that this is a valid point in F's favour.


----------



## Wile E (Jun 12, 2011)

Frederik S said:


> The scientific way to express a decimal number is 9 dot or comma depending on whether you are using US or EU decimal separator which  is another issue, you never express it by the thousands of anything any more. You can really reverse that completely just take something that is not a fraction that makes sense like 9.4374.
> 
> And in C the average body temperature is 37. Which is +-1 degree C of peoples actual temperature. The body temperature varies a lot during the day and no two people have the same core temperature.* The F temperature systems only logical reference is to a variable which is not rational.*



That's simply not true anymore. The F scale has been standardized.

Yet another moot point.

Lot's of moot points being made against both scales here.

Again, neither are better. Depends on the situation, and personal preference.


----------



## twilyth (Jun 12, 2011)

I'm just going to come out and say what everyone is thinking - Celsius is gay and that's why Fahrenheit is better.  /thread :shadedshu


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jun 12, 2011)

I don't think the sexual orientation of a temperature scale is indicative of it's merits.


----------



## silkstone (Jun 12, 2011)

I have always used Celcius and Kelvin, Farnheight totally confuse me, but i guess the most convenient is the system you know. I do like how at below zero it is freezing outside, remembering body temp isn;t much of an issue, 39C is a high fever, above 40C and you have a problem. It converts to the Kalvin scale pretty easily, where 0K is absolute zero.
At the end of the day it's just a number system you could ask why we count to the base 10 not 2. why we count in days/weeks/months/years (Based on the sun and moon) and not use a different number system for time, why is an hr 60mins?

Both temperature scales are equally valid, but i prefer Celsius as it's what i know and it's international.


----------



## ShiBDiB (Jun 12, 2011)

Fahrenheit because America says so...


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Jun 12, 2011)

I just want to point out, as someone with literally no credentials whatsoever, this is retarded.

Some other questions you can debate:
-Is hardback better than softback?
-Are pennies better than cents?
-Is salsa better chunky or not?
-Are boxes better than cases?

This goes back to the nonsensical discussion of whether imperial is better than metric, which resolves to the fact that the meter is every bit as stupid as a foot, but it's a better unit than a foot when you're doing chemistry/physics/etc..  That is to say that the meter is not naturally derived unlike a planck length.  When you learn to do math in science you learn that every number has a unit (expressible in many different ways), and some of them are truly ridiculous.  For instance I could, in the course of making some calculation, arrive at say (3.38E-10)(W^2*mol/m^3*K) or in a sentence: _3.38 times 10 to the power of negative 10, squared watt mole per cubed meter kelvin_*.

Did anyone know that a pound (lb) and a gram (g) don't even measure the same thing (though you can define one with regard to the other)?  A pound is a weight and a gram is a mass.  The imperial unit for mass is a slug which is defined as (in a sentence): _one squared second foot-pound per foot_.

So in conclusion, the temperature scale doesn't matter, unless you're doing scientific calculations, in which case Celsius or Kelvin are preferred due to international standards (SI).

*This is a non-sensical measure that could probably be reduced to some kcal or joule measurement for molar concentration.


----------



## Peter1986C (Jun 13, 2011)

streetfighter 2 said:


> a gram is a mass



True, but in daily use it is used as a weight measure. Probably most people are not aware that weight is that weight = mass * 9.81 (using metrics here, and basing the formula on the wikipedia page on gravity combined with the little bit (mass and gravity related) I remember from secondary school, so there may be errors in the calculation given).


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 13, 2011)

Here on Earth, weight and mass are intechangable.  Mass only becomes relevant when you leave Earth.  For most people, the difference means nothing.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Jun 14, 2011)

Chevalr1c said:


> True, but in daily use it is used as a weight measure. Probably most people are not aware that weight is that weight = mass * 9.81 (using metrics here, and basing the formula on the wikipedia page on gravity combined with the little bit (mass and gravity related) I remember from secondary school, so there may be errors in the calculation given).





FordGT90Concept said:


> Here on Earth, weight and mass are intechangable.  Mass only becomes relevant when you leave Earth.  For most people, the difference means nothing.


I'm not trying to fork the conversation guys.  

I was attempting to support my argument that scientific rigor demands certain conventions, whereas social reality makes such effort irrelevant.  For instance it's common (I'm guessing ) for young physics students to make this mistake:


> [1] M = 643(lb)
> [2] A = 32.2(ft/s^2)
> [3] F = MA = 643(lb) * 32.2(ft/s^2) = 20,704.6(lb) = 9,391.4(kg)
> [4] Therefore the force exerted is 9,391(kg).


Obviously kilograms aren't a force, but the problem is that (lb) is being used as both a weight and a mass in line [3].  Adding to the confusion is that if you consider the quantity defined as (M) to be a standard earth pound (lb) then the resulting force in line [3] is in a unit called a poundal . . .  All this mucking about becomes immensely confusing which is why we have SI units.

The whole point of this is just to say that the difference between Celsius and Fahrenheit is superficial and immensely arbitrary but we often use Celsius/Kelvin for convenience in scientific calculations.  (In other words: there is no "best" temperature scale and this topic is not science.)


----------



## The_Ish (Jun 25, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> *Its a bit like arguing between miles and kilometres*, isnt it? I grew up in a Celsius environment, so its Celsius, along with kilometres. I the world to migrate to Celsius and miles just like we migrated away from vacuum tubes (in my humble opinion).



I'm not being biased.


1mm X 10 = 1 cm X 10 = 1 dm X 10 = 1m etc..

As for imperial..
You got 12 inches on 1 foot, 3ft on one yard and 1760 yards per mile..
HOW DOES IT MAKE SENSE?! 

A little joke if i may, hope i don't step on anybody's toes..
Does it make sense that joke where "all Americans are stupid".

No, i disagree. In fact, i firmly believe those who actually understand the imperial system goes to a fancy college and work at NASA, where as those who don't go to community college and work at McDonald's ^^

Thank you, thank you my mic time is up!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 25, 2011)

streetfighter 2 said:


> Obviously kilograms aren't a force, but the problem is that (lb) is being used as both a weight and a mass in line [3].  Adding to the confusion is that if you consider the quantity defined as (M) to be a standard earth pound (lb) then the resulting force in line [3] is in a unit called a poundal . . .  All this mucking about becomes immensely confusing which is why we have SI units.


Uh, your math just sucks (improper units/conversions), no offense.  When you multiply pounds by feet per second squared, you don't get pounds, you get poundals.  Poundals is the imperial equivilent of newtons (both are measures of force).

F=ma
F = 643 lb * 32.2 ft/s²
F = 20,704.6 pdl

1 pdl = 1 (lb*ft)/s²

20,704.6 pdl = 0.138254954376 N / 1 pdl = 2862.5135283733296 N

Kilograms has nothing to do with this unless the units are converted to metric before multiplying.

Weight is synonymous with mass on Earth.  The difference only becomes relevant when the pull of gravity is not equal to that of Earth's.




The_Ish said:


> 1mm X 10 = 1 cm X 10 = 1 dm X 10 = 1m etc..
> 
> As for imperial..
> You got 12 inches on 1 foot, 3ft on one yard and 1760 yards per mile..
> HOW DOES IT MAKE SENSE?!


They...make...equal...sense...

The only difference is convinence and that is relative to the circumstances.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Jun 25, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Uh, your math just sucks (improper units/conversions), no offense.  When you multiply pounds by feet per second squared, you don't get pounds, you get poundals.  Poundals is the imperial equivilent of newtons (both are measures of force).
> 
> F=ma
> F = 643 lb * 32.2 ft/s²
> ...


You have failed in seeing that I was showing an example of a bad physics mistake.  Thus illustrating the importance of using SI units in calculations . . .  Please learn to read next time.

Since my ICs were never properly declared then the example's variables are up for grabs essentially.

When I'm using the imperial system I use slugs for mass and then I get a pound as a force.  But I could have used lbs for the entire thing if I corrected line [3] to use, F = m·a/g.


FordGT90Concept said:


> That "mistake" is made no matter the system of units used.  SI, metric, imperial, sticks 'n stones doesn't matter.  Units must always be preserved if they are given.


Yes, this is clearly why all scientific math is done in a mixture of both imperial and metric.  No problem has ever arisen from that conflict. 

Seriously, you hate SI now too?  You hated HDMI in the last thread and crapped there.  What did I do to make you so upset at me?

*It sounds like you're intentionally taking my writing out of context to troll me.*  You have succeeded (again). 

Hell, you even restated what I wrote...


FordGT90Concept said:


> When you multiply pounds by feet per second squared, you don't get pounds, you get poundals.  Poundals is the imperial equivilent of newtons (both are measures of force).





streetfighter 2 said:


> Adding to the confusion is that if you consider the quantity defined as (M) to be a standard earth pound (lb) then the resulting force in line [3] is in a unit called a poundal


In the English system there are both poundals and pound-force.  Either is fine provided you are consistent.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 25, 2011)

That "mistake" is made no matter the system of units used.  SI, metric, imperial, sticks 'n stones doesn't matter.  Units must always be preserved if they are given.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 25, 2011)

streetfighter 2 said:


> Yes, this is clearly why all scientific math is done in a mixture of both imperial and metric.  No problem has ever arisen from that conflict.


If you know what you're doing, they'll always yield the same answer within the margin of error of rounding due to the conversions.




streetfighter 2 said:


> Seriously, you hate SI now too?


Did I say I did?  As I stated many times in this thread, I use what's best for the situation.  I can't say I've ever had much use for liter, meter, nor gram but Celsius is sometimes useful (like computer temps).


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Jun 25, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> If you know what you're doing, they'll always yield the same answer within the margin of error of rounding due to the conversions.


http://articles.cnn.com/1999-09-30/...iter-spacecraft-team-metric-system?_s=PM:TECH

No one knows what they're doing all of the time.  We're human and we make mistakes so it's best to be consistent and use units of force and mass that are distinct in name.  Also if you'd like your paper to be reviewed by your colleague in Turkey then you better use SI because he/she is gonna look at the imperial units and say, "ne cehennem" ("what the hell").

When you're doing several pages of calculations with a huge sheet of parameters it pays you to convert all of them into one system, probably SI, so you can reduce the probability of POE.


FordGT90Concept said:


> I can't say I've ever had much use for liter, meter, nor gram but Celsius is sometimes useful (like computer temps).


Well that makes one of us.  Now I understand why this topic makes you so feisty.  Should I say that I already mentioned this . . .


streetfighter 2 said:


> scientific rigor demands certain conventions, whereas social reality makes such effort irrelevant


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 25, 2011)

So, Lockheed screwed up on units.  I don't see how that is relevant.  You can screw up just as bad by using millimeter when it is supposed to be in centimeters.  Again, it doesn't matter as long as it is done right.  They're different means of describing the same thing.  It's like calling a "1," "one."


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Jun 25, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> So, Lockheed screwed up on units.  I don't see how that is relevant.  You can screw up just as bad by using millimeter when it is supposed to be in centimeters.  Again, it doesn't matter as long as it is done right.  They're different means of describing the same thing.  It's like calling a "1," "one."


Yes well clearly you have proved irrefutably that an international standard system of units is pointless, doesn't avoid confusion, and all the people who use it are just stupid.

Congratulations Ford. 

I'm going to use rods and hogshead for measuring my bushels and stones from now on.  Then submit a paper to a journal for review that uses those insane measures just to see how many friends it earns me.  You're the man Ford!

I'll say it again:


streetfighter 2 said:


> scientific rigor demands certain conventions, whereas social reality makes such effort irrelevant


You're not in any scientific discipline, so the units don't matter to you.  They don't matter to most people either; that's the whole point.
More aptly stated:


streetfighter 2 said:


> The temperature scale doesn't matter, unless you're doing scientific calculations, in which case Celsius or Kelvin are preferred due to international standards (SI).


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 26, 2011)

Lockheed Martin is the company that brought you the SR-71, F-117, and F-22.  It is likely all those aircraft were created using English measurements.  All three of them were thee most advanced aircraft for their day and no one, anywhere, on Earth could rival them.  Do the units used matter as long as they accurately describe what they are measuring? No.  End of conversation.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Jun 26, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Lockheed Martin is the company that brought you the SR-71, F-117, and F-22.  It is likely all those aircraft were created using English measurements.  All three of them were thee most advanced aircraft for their day and no one, anywhere, on Earth could rival them.


Though all of those planes are engineering achievements they were never meant to provide research results to the scientific community.  Why were scientific papers written in Latin?  It's the same idea.

Also I disagree with your qualifier, "it's likely".

EDIT: After looking it appears they may have used United States customary units which clearly define a pound as a mass which avoids the confusion of pound-force vs pound-mass.  The example I gave did not state such a system of units and therefore was open to interpretation (which is why I made that example).


FordGT90Concept said:


> Do the units used matter as long as they accurately describe what they are measuring? No.  End of conversation.


I never indicated otherwise.  I said . . . for the umpteenth time . . .


streetfighter 2 said:


> The temperature scale doesn't matter, unless you're doing scientific calculations, in which case Celsius or Kelvin are preferred due to international standards (SI).





streetfighter 2 said:


> scientific rigor demands certain conventions, whereas social reality makes such effort irrelevant


You are not conversing or even having a rational debate, you're simply arguing about nothing . . .


----------

