|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Jun 17, 2015 1:34:46 GMT -6
I would endorse this bill, if it took Fahrenheit out of the system as well. Lets say the range of temperatures experienced in normal life is between -10 and 100 degrees Fahrenheit. That's 110 increments.
Now, the Celsius equivalent of that range is about -23 to 38 degrees, which is only 61 increments. The people in Mongolia would beg to differ, where the experienced temperatures range from -40°C in the winter to +40°C in the summer. I am just saying that "normal life" is... well... not very standardised. Also, boiling water is 100°C, and I believe that at the least half of the world's population experiences boiling water at least once a day, as well as freezing water, which does so at 0°C. My point is, the lowest and highest defining points in Celsius are making much more sense, than those in Fahrenheit's (original) scale, which went from: 0°F to (goddammitwhycouldyounothavegoneto100atleast?) 96°F (the coolest he got brine to vs. human core body temperature). That's only 96 increments in the original scale, as opposed to nice base-ten 100 increments. |
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Jun 17, 2015 4:13:52 GMT -6
Lets say the range of temperatures experienced in normal life is between -10 and 100 degrees Fahrenheit. That's 110 increments.
Now, the Celsius equivalent of that range is about -23 to 38 degrees, which is only 61 increments.
-23 to 38 degrees? That's funny.... 38, sure. But just -23??? |
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001 
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Jun 17, 2015 7:58:39 GMT -6
Lets say the range of temperatures experienced in normal life is between -10 and 100 degrees Fahrenheit. That's 110 increments.
Now, the Celsius equivalent of that range is about -23 to 38 degrees, which is only 61 increments. The people in Mongolia would beg to differ, where the experienced temperatures range from -40°C in the winter to +40°C in the summer. I am just saying that "normal life" is... well... not very standardised. Also, boiling water is 100°C, and I believe that at the least half of the world's population experiences boiling water at least once a day, as well as freezing water, which does so at 0°C. My point is, the lowest and highest defining points in Celsius are making much more sense, than those in Fahrenheit's (original) scale, which went from: 0°F to (goddammitwhycouldyounothavegoneto100atleast?) 96°F (the coolest he got brine to vs. human core body temperature). That's only 96 increments in the original scale, as opposed to nice base-ten 100 increments. While the "making sense" argument for the Celsius scale is perfectly valid (and why it is great for science), I hold Fahrenheit as being easier for non-scientists to use. Here's another example:
Lets assume that people are most familiar with the numbers 0-100. With Fahrenheit, all of these increments are experienced by most people at some point in the year. However, with Celsius, hardly anyone experiences temperatures above 40, and they also have to more frequently deal with negative numbers.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Jun 17, 2015 8:01:37 GMT -6
Lets say the range of temperatures experienced in normal life is between -10 and 100 degrees Fahrenheit. That's 110 increments.
Now, the Celsius equivalent of that range is about -23 to 38 degrees, which is only 61 increments.
-23 to 38 degrees? That's funny.... 38, sure. But just -23??? F=(9/5)C+32 for F=-10 -10=(9/5)C+32 -42=(9/5)C C=-23
Hooray for equations!
|
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Jun 17, 2015 8:16:26 GMT -6
-23 to 38 degrees? That's funny.... 38, sure. But just -23??? F=(9/5)C+32 for F=-10 -10=(9/5)C+32 -42=(9/5)C C=-23
Hooray for equations!
Yeah, I was laughing at the idea that -23 was considered the bottom of the scale... -23 is certainly a cold day. But not the coldest. We see worse in Montréal, and yet, we also see days above 35 during the day (during the summer). |
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Jun 17, 2015 9:00:09 GMT -6
The people in Mongolia would beg to differ, where the experienced temperatures range from -40°C in the winter to +40°C in the summer. I am just saying that "normal life" is... well... not very standardised. Also, boiling water is 100°C, and I believe that at the least half of the world's population experiences boiling water at least once a day, as well as freezing water, which does so at 0°C. My point is, the lowest and highest defining points in Celsius are making much more sense, than those in Fahrenheit's (original) scale, which went from: 0°F to (goddammitwhycouldyounothavegoneto100atleast?) 96°F (the coolest he got brine to vs. human core body temperature). That's only 96 increments in the original scale, as opposed to nice base-ten 100 increments. While the "making sense" argument for the Celsius scale is perfectly valid (and why it is great for science), I hold Fahrenheit as being easier for non-scientists to use. Here's another example:
Lets assume that people are most familiar with the numbers 0-100. With Fahrenheit, all of these increments are experienced by most people at some point in the year. However, with Celsius, hardly anyone experiences temperatures above 40, and they also have to more frequently deal with negative numbers.
I think your logic is lacking perspective. You only see "experiencing temperatures" as part of the weather. What about cooking, washing, heating, ironing, drinking tea/coffee, and so on? By your logic, furthermore, temperatures above 100°F would be frequently used. I am a non-scientist, and I don't find Fahrenheit easy to use. But hey, what about using °Kelvin, instead (which is basically °Celsius+273.15)? |
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Jun 17, 2015 9:00:53 GMT -6
While the "making sense" argument for the Celsius scale is perfectly valid (and why it is great for science), I hold Fahrenheit as being easier for non-scientists to use. Here's another example:
Lets assume that people are most familiar with the numbers 0-100. With Fahrenheit, all of these increments are experienced by most people at some point in the year. However, with Celsius, hardly anyone experiences temperatures above 40, and they also have to more frequently deal with negative numbers. I think your logic is lacking perspective - and I mean no disrespect. You only see "experiencing temperatures" as part of the weather. What about cooking, washing, heating, ironing, drinking tea/coffee, and so on? By your logic, furthermore, temperatures above 100°F would be frequently used, in the situations I lined out above. So therefore, the familiarity point is rendered moot. I am a non-scientist, and I don't find Fahrenheit easy to use. But hey, what about using °Kelvin, instead (which is basically °Celsius+273.15)? |
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Jun 17, 2015 9:03:42 GMT -6
You never say °Kelvin. Its always just Kelvin. 373.15 K = 100 °C.
But its good to point out that Kelvin also is used for scientific purposes. Obviously in applied science and lab practice you don't use Kelvin, because it's not very practical to heat something at 333 K instead of 60 °C, but °C is not a measure of absolute temperature, which is needed in certain calculations, so both are used in a scientific context. Kelvin is one of the base units of the SI.
|
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Jun 17, 2015 9:19:16 GMT -6
You are right, I forgot. Even more reason for Kelvin: no fancy symbol!
|
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Jun 17, 2015 12:35:46 GMT -6
Rankine for the win!
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Jun 17, 2015 19:29:14 GMT -6
Also, what do we do, if Talossan were vigesimal in counting, like, say, Irish or Scottish Gaelic? Let's go to duodecimal instead! My point is, the lowest and highest defining points in Celsius are making much more sense, than those in Fahrenheit's (original) scale, which went from: 0°F to (goddammitwhycouldyounothavegoneto100atleast?) 96°F (the coolest he got brine to vs. human core body temperature). That's only 96 increments in the original scale, as opposed to nice base-ten 100 increments. What practical significance does base-10 have in Celsius? The point of a 96-degree scale in Fahrenheit is that it's easy to mark 96 even gradations on a thermometer with a pencil and piece of string, just by dividing in half repeatedly. The sensibility of the metric system is often overstated. It's great for scientists, true, but traditional units are part of a system with a human scale, evolved over centuries to meet the real everyday needs of ordinary people. These needs aren't easily suppressed by the abstract philosophising of reformers. Take a trip to Metric Land to see some practical examples. |
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Jun 17, 2015 21:47:17 GMT -6
Regarding Metric Land... 1. Fractions are perfectly acceptable in the Metric System. If you want to say "3/8 Liter" because it is faster or more convenient, go right ahead. 2. "Standard Board-length" and "thumb" are not metric units, nor is any other abbreviated form of a metric measurement (such as a "small pint"). They are simply short-cuts to express a certain measurement. While they are useful in describing things in specific scenarios (like carpentry or beer drinking), no one would ever describe the length of, say, a football field in terms of "Board-lengths." And yet, the Imperial system continues to describe everything in terms of barleycorns, which seems just as vocation-specific as Board-lengths. 3. Sure, it is nice to be able to split a foot into thirds and sixths and get whole numbers (though .333 and .178 are not really that hard to approximate, given that millimeters are marked on standard meter sticks), but lets not pretend that the whole of the imperial system is duodecimal. Yes, 12 inches to the foot, but 3 feet to the yard and 1760 yards to the mile? What are the divisors of 1760? No ordinary person would know, except for obviously 10 and 176. Also, what Imperial Units are between yards and miles, that are ordinarily used? And after miles, what unit comes after that? There is a similar case with volume, as gallon is the largest regularly used imperial volume unit. With metric prefixes, you can more easily express both moderate and large quantities. I am not commenting on the temperature portion of Metric Land, because I am not advocating for a switch to Celsius. I will leave Epic to do that  |
|
|
|
Post by Françal Ian Lux on Jun 17, 2015 22:28:22 GMT -6
A duodecimal system? Are you mad? Unless we're living in Rivendel under Lord Elrond, such a system would be impractical. Even for us.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Jun 18, 2015 3:38:28 GMT -6
2. "Standard Board-length" and "thumb" are not metric units, nor is any other abbreviated form of a metric measurement (such as a "small pint"). They are simply short-cuts to express a certain measurement. While they are useful in describing things in specific scenarios (like carpentry or beer drinking), no one would ever describe the length of, say, a football field in terms of "Board-lengths." And yet, the Imperial system continues to describe everything in terms of barleycorns, which seems just as vocation-specific as Board-lengths. The point is that even though they are not official units, people use them because they are convenient, and so one needs to learn them as much as the official units if one wants to be able to communicate with ordinary people in ordinary situations (ordering a beer or cooking a meal). The traditional system wasn't all figured out at once either, it evolved over time, and the author's point is that new systems of traditional units will evolve on top of the metric, originally as short-cuts, but becoming established conventions over time. Also, what Imperial Units are between yards and miles, that are ordinarily used? And after miles, what unit comes after that? There is a similar case with volume, as gallon is the largest regularly used imperial volume unit. With metric prefixes, you can more easily express both moderate and large quantities. What units are between meters and kilometers? What comes after kilometers? I mean, I know such units exist, but they are almost never used. The hectometer and gigameter are probably as rare as the furlong (1/8 mile) and league (3 miles). I see astronomical distances reported in millions or billions or trillions of kilometers (when not AUs or light-years), never terameters or petameters (my computer's spell check doesn't even think those are real words). Same with volume. Sure, the exaliter exists in theory (if not in my spell-check dictionary), but Wikipedia reports the volume of large bodies of water in cubic kilometers instead. |
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Jun 18, 2015 3:40:02 GMT -6
A duodecimal system? Are you mad? Unless we're living in Rivendel under Lord Elrond, such a system would be impractical. Even for us. Why? Yeah, I know switching to any base other than decimal would be impractical simply due to the amount of re-learning that would have to occur, but if we had to start over again it seems like the duodecimal system would be clearly superior to decimal. |
|
