Fahrenheit Is A Better Temperature Scale Than Celsius

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I have to post this even though I know the subject will end up starting an argument...because I'm a jerk like that. :D

Fahrenheit gives you almost double—1.8x—the precision* of Celsius without having to delve into decimals, allowing you to better relate to the air temperature. Again, we're sensitive to small shifts in temperature, so Fahrenheit allows us to discern between two readings more easily than Saint Celsius ever could.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I learned things in F, so that's what I prefer. As far as 'better'? Who knows. They have a decent argument.

What the fuck happened to Kelvin, though? That should be the superior one.
 
F stands for Full-retard. Bass ackwards systems we have here in the US.
 
For me it's:

Weather - F°

Computers/Electronics - C°
 
0°C - water freezes. 100°C - water boils.

Humans are mostly water, at ~28°C.

Celcius allows you to precisely gauge whether your environment is pushing your body towards vaporization or solidification. Easy to read between the lines?
 
It's been only in the past few years that I can instantly picture the size or distance of something given metric system measurements. I had to make a conscious effort to do so.
 
In any case, the whole argument is irrelevant. Fahrenheit scale lost, it is only a question when will USA stop being different just for the sake of being different.
 
Kelvin wins!
(seen in original article's comments):
vo7siirieakplzzoinxp.jpg

:D:D:D
 
Metric system and professional soccer.

We've been told both are right there on the precipice of being fully accepted/adopted/endorsed as mainstream by the American people since the 1960s.
 
Better yet, do it all in Planck temperature (Θ)!

0Θ = Dead
1Θ = So so Dead

For the record water freezes at 1.928*10-30 Θ and boils at 2.634*10-30 Θ
 
it doesn't matter whether a specific temperature range has more units of farenheit or more in celsius using decimals. in fact, there are an infinite number of temperatures in any range that can be accurately measured in both farenheit and celsius. it's just that farenheit is retarded. :p
 
I am not exactly sure how much you gain from precision in the ranges we are usually operating ... and what genius decided that precision without decimals was more desirable ... I am fairly certain that if you owe me $5.50 it is better to give me the $5.50, if you give me $5 I will be pissed and if I make you give me $6 then you would be pissed ;)

if their argument is about temperatures that are meaningful for humans (as they seem to be arguing) then the scale for zero should start at the human body temperature (approximately 98.6 F/37 C) ... and proceed in positive numbers for higher and negative numbers for lower ... they could make the scale as teeny as they like if integer precision is their goal ... this would be more useful for health since negative temperatures would result in loss of body heat and positive temperatures would result in an increase of body heat ... totally useless for science but presumably helpful if your goal is to understand the impact of the environment on the human body

Or one could just teach people enough basic physics and heat transfer to realize that if it is -10C you should bundle up ... if it is 40C then you should make sure you are properly hydrated ... if you can't figure that out then Darwin had a nice theory that covered that situation :D
 
Who cares?
There should honestly just be one standard.

This is like dollars vs yen, it represents the same thing, just with different variations in values.
 
I keep waiting for the Euros to come up with a decimal time system, and tell us how stupid americans are for not adopting their superior and awesome 100 second minutes, etc.
 
kbrickley said:
I am not exactly sure how much you gain from precision in the ranges we are usually operating ... and what genius decided that precision without decimals was more desirable ... I am fairly certain that if you owe me $5.50 it is better to give me the $5.50, if you give me $5 I will be pissed and if I make you give me $6 then you would be pissed ;)

if their argument is about temperatures that are meaningful for humans (as they seem to be arguing) then the scale for zero should start at the human body temperature (approximately 98.6 F/37 C) ... and proceed in positive numbers for higher and negative numbers for lower ... they could make the scale as teeny as they like if integer precision is their goal ... this would be more useful for health since negative temperatures would result in loss of body heat and positive temperatures would result in an increase of body heat ... totally useless for science but presumably helpful if your goal is to understand the impact of the environment on the human body

Or one could just teach people enough basic physics and heat transfer to realize that if it is -10C you should bundle up ... if it is 40C then you should make sure you are properly hydrated ... if you can't figure that out then Darwin had a nice theory that covered that situation :D
Click to expand...
If temperature started at human body temp some people would not be at 0 I would be about -2

the worst thing anyone can do is change it let f and c exist and leave science to its k. Fck all this noise. The other thing I hate is how pretentious metric system vs standard people are. Metric based people can not be bothered to convert or even know how to convert it. The attitude is your not metric what is wrong with you retard.
 
Red Falcon said:
Who cares?
There should honestly just be one standard.

This is like dollars vs yen, it represents the same thing, just with different variations in values.
Click to expand...

Obviously the Yen is more precise since there are 120 Yens for every Dollar ... going by their arguments :D
 
I prefer Celcius simply because Europe.

However, in my teenage years I strongly argued for Farenheit based on that it is a more precise measurement than Celcius. 1-2 degrees Farenheit difference can be felt in a room. 1-2 Celcius is a huge leap. I really don't want to have to say "please set the thermostat to 22.85 Celcius!"
 
(EDIT -- but uh, points made, who cares? It's just a different measurement.)
 
Cerulean said:
I prefer Celcius simply because Europe.

However, in my teenage years I strongly argued for Farenheit based on that it is a more precise measurement than Celcius. 1-2 degrees Farenheit difference can be felt in a room. 1-2 Celcius is a huge leap. I really don't want to have to say "please set the thermostat to 22.85 Celcius!"
Click to expand...

So do European thermostats actually go to half a degree?
 
faugusztin said:
In any case, the whole argument is irrelevant. Fahrenheit scale lost, it is only a question when will USA stop being different just for the sake of being different.
Click to expand...

Never. Al Gore created the internet and Fahrenheit. True story.
 
Lunas said:
If temperature started at human body temp some people would not be at 0 I would be about -2

the worst thing anyone can do is change it let f and c exist and leave science to its k. Fck all this noise. The other thing I hate is how pretentious metric system vs standard people are. Metric based people can not be bothered to convert or even know how to convert it. The attitude is your not metric what is wrong with you retard.
Click to expand...

I wasn't recommending that scale but part of their argument was that the 0-100 range of the Centigrade scale is designed for science (true) and that the 0-100 range of Fahrenheit is more meaningful for human health (generally true) ... so I created a new temperature scale that is designed to measure the impact of the environment on human temperature ... I will call it the Brickleyius scale :cool:
 
Xpl1c1t said:
0°C - water freezes. 100°C - water boils.

Humans are mostly water, at ~28°C.

Celcius allows you to precisely gauge whether your environment is pushing your body towards vaporization or solidification. Easy to read between the lines?
Click to expand...

Because if you measure something on Fahrenheit it neither freezes nor boils.

Metric was developed around quantities that reflected the creators of the system of the time who were interested in Canonballs (meters) and chemistry experiments with test tube quantities (grams). The rest of the system is derived from that.

The old Imperial derived system was derived from everyday use by people more or less in carpentry and the mercantile business. So they deal with quantities that people use in everyday.

For example people like to map things to be out of 100. So chemist/physicist types pick the boiling and freezing point of water as some abstract ideal which actual do vary around the world mostly with altitude. Fahrenheit is more or less 0 to 100 for the temperatures of weather people more or less experience. Boiling water matters to people but mostly whether its boiling or not. If its 202 deg. it might at well be 172 deg. They don't need precision up there for everyday use.

So the old Imperial system units have the most practical scales for everyday use by most people. Metric is easier to do math with because math is really hard, apparently.
 
faugusztin said:
* Unless you have salt in it :).
Click to expand...

Or Glycol

Or if it is under pressure

Or if it is under a vacuum

The boiling point is at sea level. Once you get up into the higher altitudes, hens less pressure, the boiling point goes down slightly.
 
F* is better because its a smaller unit of measurement.

Metric is better because its not fucking stupid.
 
kbrickley said:
I am not exactly sure how much you gain from precision in the ranges we are usually operating ... and what genius decided that precision without decimals was more desirable
Click to expand...

It's the weather. Being able to express common Earth temperatures with only 2 digits is rather useful on maps and such where space is limited.
 
I should have said "the rest of the metric system"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top