there's more precision in fahreinheit, why do others keep using celsius?

[nixium]

Because to convert 1.5kg to grams you move the decimal point. To convert 1.5 pounds to ounces you multiply by 16. Which is do you think is easier to screw up? Here's a hint: its the "easy" one.

The stupid example someone posted was where a contractor used inches instead of centimeters (IIRC), this doesnt mean the non-metric was the mistake. It could have been just as bad assuming the measurement was in mm vs cm, or cm vs meters, etc.

Oh god this is getting ridiculous.

if you do the conversion via a calculator, it doesn't matter, there's no way to "screw up".

if you do it mentally, then you have to move the decimal point regardless, and it's easier to move a decimal point 1.5 * 1000 than 1.5 * 16. In the former, it's simply moving the point 3 spaces. In the latter, you first have to figure out 15 * 16 and then place the decimal point.

Look, metric math is simpler. There's no arguing about it. If you took two people who'd never encountered either system before, they'll find the metric one easier. As for arguing how that's arithmetically "lazy" ... nobody *wants* to crunch numbers. That's why we invented calculators and computers.

 

[Train]

Oh god this is getting ridiculous.

if you do the conversion via a calculator, it doesn't matter, there's no way to "screw up".

if you do it mentally, then you have to move the decimal point regardless, and it's easier to move a decimal point 1.5 * 1000 than 1.5 * 16. In the former, it's simply moving the point 3 spaces. In the latter, you first have to figure out 15 * 16 and then place the decimal point.

Look, metric math is simpler. There's no arguing about it. If you took two people who'd never encountered either system before, they'll find the metric one easier. As for arguing how that's arithmetically "lazy" ... nobody *wants* to crunch numbers. That's why we invented calculators and computers.

If it's all done by calcuators and computers... then the conversion factor is moot, is it not? Is it harder to type in a 16 than it is a 10? The selling point that the metric goons keep harping on is the EASY conversion... are you starting to see the actual point now?

 

[zinfamous]

I use the darkxshade scale... today is either:

Hot
Warm
Perfect
Cool
Cold

With my scale you are free to use prefixes... "Today is fucking hot" for example is more precise than either Celsius or Fahreinheit. Please adopt today!

where does the "___ as balls" description fit on your scale?

I've heard "cold as balls" and "hot as balls" in somewhat equal proportion.

So, does your system compensate for the apparently nebulous use of certain descriptors? Can such be quantified appropriately?

I'm curious.

 

[zinfamous]

People who want Celsius think because it's part of the metric system it's magically better. They are not thinking logically for themselves; they just believe it's better because they have been told that it' more "scientific." There's no benefit to using Celsius. Kelvin is more useful, even Rankine is better than Celsius. The starting point of Celsius is −273.15 °C, that's just retarded. Could imagine if the rest of the metric system used such a retarded starting point instead of nothing being zero. Imagine an empty gasoline tank holding -273 liters of gas, and a full gas tank holding -173 liters of gas, and then tell me Celsius isn't retarded. If you want to switch from Fahrenheit at least switch to a better system. Which is of course Kelvin.

Fahrenheit is not completely arbitrary. A 180 degrees between the opposite states of water seems very logical. Fahrenheit was made to be a handy measurement system that didn't need fractions in typical usage. Anyone who thinks it's completely arbitrary should read up on the basics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farenheit

I suppose they think it's "more scientific" b/c that is the scale used in Science. You will not see Fahrenheit. So...it's not exactly based on an arbitrary assumption.

I only work in molecular bio, and for our needs, Celcius is perfectly useful. The low end is generally -80 (-170 if working with liquid nitrogen), and the high end...maybe around 65. I have no experience in the physical sciences where scales would likely need to be more precise, so you probably have an argument there. For us, though, Celcius is just about perfect.

 

[Jeff7]

Wow, this thread contains many degrees of lulz.

 

[maziwanka]

precision is based on the measuring tool, not the scale

exactly. the OP's post made no sense

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

exactly. the OP's post made no sense

read the whole thread before making assumptions.

 

[DrPizza]

The argument that either Celsius or Farenheit are stupid because they don't start at zero at absolute zero is faulty. That argument is analogous to saying that all heights should be given relative to the center of the earth. We generally don't deal with distances that are below sea level, so why use a system based on that? It would be unwieldy to constantly deal with measurements with values so high.


Also, regarding the Imperial system that some of the Americans claim is better. Oh yeah? Then why don't you know all your imperial units? Even after a decent year of high school physics, most students know the majority of SI units. Not so with imperial units. What's the unit of mass? How many pecks in a bushel?

Also, you Americans DO use the metric system on a very regular basis - 40 watt lightbulb? Hmmm, power is measured in whats? You purchase electricity by the kilowatt hour? But then you decide how much energy you need to heat your home by the BTU. Absolutely brilliant.

Okay, Americans, without googling, 1000 BTUs is how many kilowatt hours?

 

[nixium]

If it's all done by calcuators and computers... then the conversion factor is moot, is it not? Is it harder to type in a 16 than it is a 10? The selling point that the metric goons keep harping on is the EASY conversion... are you starting to see the actual point now?

AAARGH!!!

No, it's not *all* done by computers and calculators. Read my response again.

 

[Aquaman]

I grew up when Canada was changing from Imperial to Metric so I can use both

Cheers,
Aquaman

 

[Gothgar]

serious thread is serious

 

[Jeff7]

...
Also, you Americans DO use the metric system on a very regular basis - 40 watt lightbulb? Hmmm, power is measured in whats? You purchase electricity by the kilowatt hour? But then you decide how much energy you need to heat your home by the BTU. Absolutely brilliant.

Don't forget the drug trade, too: a good way of learning mass measurement, and how it converts to "# of caps in yo ass".

Oh, and what else.
20oz soda, but also 2 liter bottles.
(Legal) drugs: milligrams.
Food energy: Calories.
Engine displacement: cc's

Okay, Americans, without googling, 1000 BTUs is how many kilowatt hours?

I'm having some terrible flashbacks now to my Heat Transfer class....


(I hated doing homework problems in English units. One nice thing about metric: Checking your answers was easy. "Hmm, this answer seems like it's off by a factor of 100. Unit error!"
versus:
"Hmm, this answer is off by a factor of 472.44. Time to double check everything."

So right there, off by 100, and you can be pretty sure you just botched unit conversion somewhere. Off by 472.44 (which is 39.37 * 12), then you might not know it's just unit conversion, but instead think it's a more serious math or equation error somewhere.
Yes, I misplaced decimals. And I'd screw up math. I much prefer misplaced decimals though for error checking.

(And in any application, when you get an answer, you always need to think, "Is this reasonable?" If you're calculating the stress in a beam, and you get 200,000,000 psi, don't just punch it into a database and call it right. I don't care if you're using metric or Imperial. Carelessness has the same consequences in either system.)


Interestingly, one of my professors didn't like metric. "Too many zeroes" he said. Oddly, I preferred it, in part, because of the ease of exponential notation.
10,000,000? 1e7, or just 10^7. Wow, look at all the zeroes.

 

[BladeVenom]

I suppose they think it's "more scientific" b/c that is the scale used in Science. You will not see Fahrenheit. So...it's not exactly based on an arbitrary assumption.

I wasn't advocating Fahrenheit, but Celsius wasn't necessary for science; it just rode on the coattails of the Metric System. An absolute scale for measuring temperature is necessary, and even the old Rankine scale will work were Celsius fails. Kelvin is the way to go for measuring temperature in science.

I only work in molecular bio, and for our needs, Celcius is perfectly useful. The low end is generally -80 (-170 if working with liquid nitrogen), and the high end...maybe around 65. I have no experience in the physical sciences where scales would likely need to be more precise, so you probably have an argument there. For us, though, Celcius is just about perfect.

You could do what you do with Fahrenheit if you had to. You took basic chemistry, try pV = nRT, with Celsius.

 

[BladeVenom]

The argument that either Celsius or Farenheit are stupid because they don't start at zero at absolute zero is faulty. That argument is analogous to saying that all heights should be given relative to the center of the earth. We generally don't deal with distances that are below sea level, so why use a system based on that? It would be unwieldy to constantly deal with measurements with values so high.

You've gotten your analogy backwards. Celsius is the one measuring relative to something else by starting at the freezing point of water. Celsius is the one that's unwieldy since it's not an absolute scale.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

You've gotten your analogy backwards. Celsius is the one measuring relative to something else by starting at the freezing point of water. Celsius is the one that's unwieldy since it's not an absolute scale.

Neither Celsius nor Fahrenheit are relative, both are absolute. DrPizza's analogy is faulty because height really is a relative scale. Celsius and Fahrenheit are NOT relative, they simply have an offset zero value. You don't need a point of reference to measure temperature like you do with height.

C and F are definitely both absolute measures.

 

[Born2bwire]

There's more to it.

A cubic centimeter of water is exactly one gram. Therefore 1 kilogram (1000g) equals also one liter of water. So..."our" system makes more sense than yours and things are in a relationship...while "your" system is just weird



roflmao. I think the LEAST thing i can expect is to give a system a *somewhat* scientific background - and not nonsense like "the average human foot" or "how far the ox travels if its well fed".

Metric system makes sense, it also goes hand in hand with the math we use which is a decimal system. 1- 10 -100 -1000 etc.

"1 yard is three feet"...where's the logic...same with 7000 pieces of grain. Its totally counter productive, that's also the reason that for science the metric system is used and not that "ox math"

Where's the logic? The guys that need logic are those arrogant eggheads that sit around mouth breathing chalk dust all day. Look, if you want to sit around and count the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom be my guest. Want to weigh your chicken feed, sure just need to fetch the mass equal to that of 1000⁄12 · 6.02214179×10^23 atoms of Carbon-12.

What this really is about is the seizure of weights and measurements, the very foundations of trade and commerce, from the common people. Instead of allowing regular people to be in command of the basics of the mercantile system, the intelligentsia at the behest of the ruling elite are coming up with new ways to strip power from us. It used to be that every man could create a pound. Every man could measure the mile. But even these encompass the arrogance of Man. At what point did man decide to decide to stray from the cubit, a holy unit of measurement, to one decided upon the foot? This was the very first step in the arrogance of the intelligentsia in replacing God's word with Man. Disgusting.

So go ahead, let some lab-coated sheep tell you how much your gold weighs. I'm going to stick with the knowledge that a pint's a pound the world around.

 

[sdifox]

Where's the logic? The guys that need logic are those arrogant eggheads that sit around mouth breathing chalk dust all day. Look, if you want to sit around and count the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom be my guest. Want to weigh your chicken feed, sure just need to fetch the mass equal to that of 1000⁄12 · 6.02214179×10^23 atoms of Carbon-12.

What this really is about is the seizure of weights and measurements, the very foundations of trade and commerce, from the common people. Instead of allowing regular people to be in command of the basics of the mercantile system, the intelligentsia at the behest of the ruling elite are coming up with new ways to strip power from us. It used to be that every man could create a pound. Every man could measure the mile. But even these encompass the arrogance of Man. At what point did man decide to decide to stray from the cubit, a holy unit of measurement, to one decided upon the foot? This was the very first step in the arrogance of the intelligentsia in replacing God's word with Man. Disgusting.

So go ahead, let some lab-coated sheep tell you how much your gold weighs. I'm going to stick with the knowledge that a pint's a pound the world around.

Can I have 61cm of tin foil from your roll please? I seem to have ran out.

 

[BladeVenom]

Neither Celsius nor Fahrenheit are relative, both are absolute. DrPizza's analogy is faulty because height really is a relative scale. Celsius and Fahrenheit are NOT relative, they simply have an offset zero value. You don't need a point of reference to measure temperature like you do with height.

C and F are definitely both absolute measures.

You might want to check your dictionary:

absolute scale
n.
1. A scale of temperature with absolute zero as the minimum.
2. The Kelvin scale.

 

[hanoverphist]

are yall still arguing about this? damn.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

I was using the term absolute as opposed to relative. C and F and NOT relative, they merely have an offset zero value. In fact, if Celsius were a relative scale then Kelvin could not be absolute BY DEFINITION because Kelvin intervals are the same as Celsius intervals. They are essentially the same scale but with zero in a different place.

 

[BladeVenom]

relative temperature scale
"A temperature scale in which measurements are amounts that are more or less than a reference amount. In the Celsius scale, for example, the reference amount is set as the freezing point of water, or zero. Other measurements are made relative to this point. Relative temperature scales have both positive and negative numbers. The Celsius scale and the Fahrenheit scale are relative temperature scales."

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

You and I are using different meanings for the word "relative" here. I'm using it in the general sense of measurement scales - velocities are always relative because it doesn't make sense to measure the speed of something without a point of reference. Height is relative because you need a "bottom" to measure height. Temperature is not relative because you don't need a baseline to get a measurement, and celsius is a consistent scale. All observers will measure the same temperature of an object if they use the same units, whether that be C, F or K (ignoring relativistic effects, which I think could have some effect).

You should start linking the sources for your quotes, and understand that dictionaries are not exactly the best place to find definitions for scientific terms.

 

[BladeVenom]

Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsius

"What is often confused about the Celsius measurement is that it follows an interval system but not a ratio system or it follows a relative scale not an absolute scale. This is put simply by illustrating that while 10 °C and 20 °C have the same interval difference as 20 °C and 30 °C the temperature 20 °C is not twice the air heat energy as 10 °C. As this example shows degrees Celsius is a useful interval measurement but does not possess the characteristics of ratio measures like weight or distance."

If you don't like Wikipedia, Thermodynamics for Engineers