• FooBarrington@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    But that’s the same reason given for Farenheit!

    I would also argue that Fahrenheit is better-suited for everyday life than Kelvin is. Both Celsius and Fahrenheit are objectively closer to temperatures we encounter. Fahrenheit being closer than Celsius is subjective. Do you understand?

    It’s not arbitrary in that it represents the fundamental limits of temperature in the universe.

    There are still a bunch of arbitrary decisions:

    • what is your minimum and maximum (e.g. why 0/100? Why not 0/1?)
    • what does zero represent (e.g. why is 0 minimum? Why not center?)
    • how do you scale (e.g. linear/logarithmic)

    All of these are arbitrary decisions you’ve made when you suggested Planck temperature with a scale from 0 to 100. Do you understand?

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Fahrenheit being closer than Celsius is subjective. Do you understand?

      Given that you already said you have to use 3 digits to give Celsius the range that matches human temperature sensing, that’s not true. 1 degree F is the average threshold that humans can perceive a difference in temperature. It’s why thermostats use 3 digits for Celsius but only 2 for Farenheit.

      The only reason you say C matches people is because you are used to 21.5 C being a regular indoor temperature. If you grew up with Kelvin that would be 294.5 K. Three digits instead of four.

      what is your minimum and maximum

      Doesn’t matter. Base 10 would be better so it matches the rest of metric. The decimal place shifts one space but that doesn’t change the number of digits needed to represent a temperature.

      Zero is absolute zero. You can’t have below zero because temperature is a measure of motion.

      how do you scale

      Linear to match the rest of the metric system.