• frezik@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    In short, you don’t want to use a temperature scale with an arbitrary starting point for doing calculations like this. The freezing point of water is no more or less arbitrary than the freezing point of oxygen or sodium or anything else. It’s just one that’s somewhat useful for everyday use. When handling calculations for multiplying temperature, you want an absolute scale like Kelvin.

    Or Rankine if you’re that kind of pervert.

      • Bumblefumble@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        0 K is like when there is 0 heat basically, while celsius isn’t. Imagine a unit for distance called “goob” where 0 goobs is 100 m and 1 goob is 115 m. In that case the goob unit would behave differently than a meter when you multiply and divide because 0 of the units don’t actually correspond to “nothing” in a physical sense. That’s exactly how the Celsius scale is, with zero being placed somewhere arbitrarily, not at a physical zero.

    • yetiftw@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      absolute scales are still arbitrary. you would probably want to use a scale that measures “perceived heat” which is different than average kinetic energy

      • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        Kelvin is just our word for it, but that is the point of “no heat”. It isn’t arbitrary, there is no “negative kelvin” just like you cannot make something colder than absolute zero.

        So if you take the difference between “coldest possible temp” and “average summer temp”, then slice it in half, you’re getting temperatures that would kill most life on earth.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          Just to nitpick, there are negative kelvins. I don’t really understand it, myself, but I know it exists due to the specifics of how temperature is defined. Negative kelvins are actually extremely hot.

        • yetiftw@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          just because it has a reason doesn’t make it not arbitrary. you can ultimately come up with a reason for all arbitrary decisions

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Is there a way to distinguish between arbitrary and non-arbitrary? Or is literally everything ever arbitrary?

              • frezik@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                26 days ago

                Then what’s the point of even calling it arbitrary? If it covers everything, then there’s no reason for the word.

                • yetiftw@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  23 days ago

                  that’s not true. there are things that are not definitions. like my bed for instance, there are aspects that are arbitrary (my personal preferences, design choices, etc) and aspects that are not arbitrary (its physical form that exists beyond definition)