766
Fahrenheit vs. Celsius vs. Kelvin (i.imgur.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
155 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

Can humans survive 100 degree heat? Yes so it doesn’t represent 100%

I have no idea what this means.

150 for 3rd degree burns (almost instant), does Fahrenheit go off base 150? Also no

What about cold? Well -40 requires a lot of layers, so then +40 should be pretty hot for humans right? Nope, because it’s not related to humans at all

Why do these matter? What percentage of humans live where it's regularly -40 degrees? Why does the scale need to be perfect in your opinion? And how is Celsius better?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I have no idea what this means.

    Humans can survive 100 F so it’s not a scale of 0-100, which you would expect for a system based on humans

    Why does the scale need to be perfect in your opinion?

    The person I responded to said it was based off humans, I was arguing that it wasn’t because no patterns exist in relation to humans

    And how is Celsius better?

    Well the person claimed it’s based on the temperature of water at sea level with 0 being freezing and 100 being boiling. This would be the 0-100% for water

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Technically, water can still go higher than 100°C, same as humans can go higher than 100°F. Water turns into steam. If the temperature continues to rise, the steam would theoretically enter a plasma state. Then, you could say the water has "died" as the atoms and molecules lose their electrons.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago

    Humans can survive 100 F so it’s not a scale of 0-100, which you would expect for a system based on humans

    No one said it's a scale limited from 0 to 100 on the basis of survivability. That's something you just made up on the spot to push some weird narrative.

    The person I responded to said it was based off humans, I was arguing that it wasn’t because no patterns exist in relation to humans

    I again have no idea what you're saying. The patterns of 0 being low and 100 being high isn't a pattern related to humans? That's obviously not true. We use 0 as the bottom and 100 for the top on a lot of other things.

    Well the person claimed it’s based on the temperature of water at sea level with 0 being freezing and 100 being boiling. This would be the 0-100% for water

    Why are you limiting 0 and 100 as cut offs?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent