Celcius or Fahrenheit

[Peter]

Grew up with Celsius, thus know it well, and all cookery books come in both these days. I know the formula for conversion between the two, though going from F to C can be painful because you have to divide by 9.

[tarheel-leftist85]

Celsius when doing chemistry (or Kelvins)
Fahrenheit when talking to people

[bgwah]

Celsius is far superior. I wish we would just change to that. We don't have to go all the way to meters and sh**t, but comon guys, fahrenheit is retarded.

[John Dibble]

Celsius is far superior. I wish we would just change to that. We don't have to go all the way to meters and sh**t, but comon guys, fahrenheit is retarded.

No, you're retarded!

[muon2]

Fahrenheit. All I will say is that the U.S. better never convert to Celcius/Metric. And don't even get me started with Kelvin. I had to use it in Chemistry class and....see I got myself started on it...

Why is it Republicanss hate science so much?

Ahem...

On this forum, it seems like the scientists lean right and the science students lean left. In Congress the Republicans historically are better supporters of science than the Democrats.

BTW, I can't answer the poll. I'm comfortably bilingual in the two systems. They each have their use in context.

[Alcon]

As a user of both non-scientifically, I must say that celsius is best to me in principle, but I am bothered by the closeness between numbers - it tends to result in less exact measurements, although not by much, and the point is moot if you are using decimals.

I think 0 is a better place to start than 32, certainly.

[MasterJedi]

I'll take Fahrenheit anyday.

[CheeseWhiz]

Celcius is better, even though I'm more used to Fahrenheit.

I agree.

[bgwah]

Celsius is far superior. I wish we would just change to that. We don't have to go all the way to meters and sh**t, but comon guys, fahrenheit is retarded.

No, you're retarded!

...You're the one who's a Libertarian.

[Cubby]

I like Fahrenheit better. Can't think of a good reason.

Although I don't know why carbonated drinks here in the U.S. are sold by the liter if there is such dislike of the metric system.

In regards to the discussion on the 1st or 2nd page, my High School Biology teacher was a Republican. I think the GOP has a misperception of what teachers believe in. They confuse union demands with left wing philosophy. Teachers aren't a monolithic bloc. My brother told me last year that his teacher said in class that she thought Theresa Kerry would be a terrible First Lady

[ilikeverin]

but I am bothered by the closeness between numbers - it tends to result in less exact measurements, although not by much, and the point is moot if you are using decimals.

We should just switch to a system where freezing is 0 and boiling is 1000

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

but I am bothered by the closeness between numbers - it tends to result in less exact measurements, although not by much, and the point is moot if you are using decimals.

We should just switch to a system where freezing is 0 and boiling is 1000

Already exists. It's called decicelsius.

[Gabu]

As a user of both non-scientifically, I must say that celsius is best to me in principle, but I am bothered by the closeness between numbers - it tends to result in less exact measurements, although not by much, and the point is moot if you are using decimals.

Not really.  Your usual yearly outdoor temperatures in Celcius range between around -20 to around 40.  Sure there's less integers to be used, but I've never found myself ever needing to use fractions of a degrees to achieve the descriptive ability that I require.  It's more than enough for people to be able to estimate the a temperature.

[muon2]

As a user of both non-scientifically, I must say that celsius is best to me in principle, but I am bothered by the closeness between numbers - it tends to result in less exact measurements, although not by much, and the point is moot if you are using decimals.

I think 0 is a better place to start than 32, certainly.

Fahenheit doesn't start at 32. It starts at zero, but zero in Fahrenheit doesn't mean the freezing temperature (technically the triple point temperature) of water. As others have mentioned, a zero point other than absolute zero is arbitrary.

[Gabu]

As a user of both non-scientifically, I must say that celsius is best to me in principle, but I am bothered by the closeness between numbers - it tends to result in less exact measurements, although not by much, and the point is moot if you are using decimals.

I think 0 is a better place to start than 32, certainly.

Fahenheit doesn't start at 32. It starts at zero, but zero in Fahrenheit doesn't mean the freezing temperature (technically the triple point temperature) of water. As others have mentioned, a zero point other than absolute zero is arbitrary.

That's why real men use Kelvin.

[muon2]

As a user of both non-scientifically, I must say that celsius is best to me in principle, but I am bothered by the closeness between numbers - it tends to result in less exact measurements, although not by much, and the point is moot if you are using decimals.

I think 0 is a better place to start than 32, certainly.

Fahenheit doesn't start at 32. It starts at zero, but zero in Fahrenheit doesn't mean the freezing temperature (technically the triple point temperature) of water. As others have mentioned, a zero point other than absolute zero is arbitrary.

That's why real men use Kelvin.

Yes, but there is little to distinguish Kelvin from Rankine. Both use absolute zero, and both have an arbitrary step size.

A more rational system would have a decimal-based step size to a well defined natural constant. For instance, use one degree equal to 1/1000 of the thermodynamic temperature of the triple point of water. That would be slightly less than a half a degree Rankine (or Fahrenheit).

More rational still would be to define it in terms a fundamental constant of the universe such as Boltzmann's constant. That would be be similar to defining time or distance with respect to the speed of light in a vacuum.

[Gabu]

As a user of both non-scientifically, I must say that celsius is best to me in principle, but I am bothered by the closeness between numbers - it tends to result in less exact measurements, although not by much, and the point is moot if you are using decimals.

I think 0 is a better place to start than 32, certainly.

Fahenheit doesn't start at 32. It starts at zero, but zero in Fahrenheit doesn't mean the freezing temperature (technically the triple point temperature) of water. As others have mentioned, a zero point other than absolute zero is arbitrary.

That's why real men use Kelvin.

Yes, but there is little to distinguish Kelvin from Rankine. Both use absolute zero, and both have an arbitrary step size.

A more rational system would have a decimal-based step size to a well defined natural constant. For instance, use one degree equal to 1/1000 of the thermodynamic temperature of the triple point of water. That would be slightly less than a half a degree Rankine (or Fahrenheit).

More rational still would be to define it in terms a fundamental constant of the universe such as Boltzmann's constant. That would be be similar to defining time or distance with respect to the speed of light in a vacuum.

That was a rather detailed response to what was intended to be a joke, but interesting idea nonetheless.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

there is little to distinguish Kelvin from Rankine. Both use absolute zero, and both have an arbitrary step size.

A more rational system would have a decimal-based step size to a well defined natural constant. For instance, use one degree equal to 1/1000 of the thermodynamic temperature of the triple point of water. That would be slightly less than a half a degree Rankine (or Fahrenheit).

More rational still would be to define it in terms a fundamental constant of the universe such as Boltzmann's constant. That would be be similar to defining time or distance with respect to the speed of light in a vacuum.

Nah, the importance of the freezing point of water in meteorology  (almost but not exactly the same as the triple point)  makes it important to include the triple point as an easy to use reference point, also meteorology finds it a lot easier to use that as the zero point since it keeps the numbers for everyday temps small.

Thus there should remain two scales, a scientific one and a meterological one that would also see general every day use.  Since Bose-Einstein condensates are the closest we've been able to come to absolute zero, calling a new absolute zero scale the Bose scale makes sense.  For meterology, I think honoring Edward Lorenz makes sense, thus:

0°B = -1000°L = absolute zero
1000°B = 0°L =  triple point of water

81°F ≈ 27°C ≈100°L ≈ upper limit of comfortable air temps / lower limit of comfortable water temp
97.8°F = 37°C ≈ 135°L ≈ human body temperature
130°F ≈ 54.5C ≈ 200°L ≈ upper limit of tolerable water temperatures
500°F = 260°C ≈ 950°L ≈ usual upper limit of cooking oven temps

Granted, a fairtly selective set of temps, but enough to show that the Lorenz scale would work well in everyday applications while being able to be easily convertable to the scientific Bose scale.

[minionofmidas]

but I am bothered by the closeness between numbers - it tends to result in less exact measurements, although not by much, and the point is moot if you are using decimals.

We should just switch to a system where freezing is 0 and boiling is 1000

Of course Celsius is just a ripoff off Réaumur (more proof that all good things come from France), made decimal by multiplying all Réaumur values by 1.2.

[Storebought]

It was mentioned before but 0 F is the freezing point of salt water.

But 100 F has nothing to do with human beings; no, 100 F is actually the rectal temperature of a cow...

[??????????]

but I am bothered by the closeness between numbers - it tends to result in less exact measurements, although not by much, and the point is moot if you are using decimals.

We should just switch to a system where freezing is 0 and boiling is 1000

Already exists. It's called decicelsius.

Deci..what? Interesting, how long's it been around?

[East Coast Republican]

Fahrenheit

[Franzl]

Fahrenheit

why?

[ChrisJG777]

Kelvin>Celsius>Some Arbitrary Temperature Scale>A broken thermometer>A crystal ball>Tea Leaves>Entrails>Tarot Cards>Astrology>Dog Droppings>Fahrenheit


To be honest the only non-metric units that I don't reel at the sight over have to be miles, pints and gallons.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Fahrenheit

why?

Cuz celciuz was a librul!