Maybe we should get used to an absolute scale so we won't be disconcerted by negative temperatures when we explore ice planets in distant galaxies.
--- On 8/31/10 10:12 PM, "James R. Frysinger" <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm less fussy, folks. I'll be happy when people stop using the > Fahrenheit scale. > > Are we trying here to specify the color of the dancing slippers worn by > some yet to be determined number of angels dancing on the head of a pin? > This thread is starting to sound like some deep theological discussion > among nuns. > > I suggest we concentrate on metrication of the U.S. Then we can "fix" > the metric system to our hearts' content. > > Jim > > On 2010-08-31 2053, Bill Hooper wrote: >> >> On Aug 31 , at 7:45 AM, John M. Steele wrote: >> >>> measurement on the thermodynamic scale is somewhat impractical, >> >> Why? >> >> Today's high temperature here in Florida was about 32 šC. >> Why would it be "impractical" to say it was 305 K? >> There is nothing wrong with a number in the hundreds. >> >> But I don't claim to propose that we measure environmental as the >> ABSOLUTE temperature in kelvins. >> I do propose we measure environmental temperatures in kelvins as it is >> related to the freezing point of water, >> that is, as a RELATIVE temperature, specifically, relative to the >> freezing point of water. >> >> I am proposing tat we do this be stating environmental temperatures as >> so-and-so many kelvins above freezing. >> For example, say that temperature in Florida today was 32 K above freezing. >> >> I am simply proposing we change >> from saying "32 degrees Celsius" >> to saying "32 kelvins above freezing". >> >> This could be further simplified by omitting the phrase "above freezing" >> whenever the context makes such a meaning obvious. >> We do this all the time with current temperatures. Don't we? >> How often do you hear a TV weather reporter stating "today's high was 90 >> degrees Fahrenheit"? Never (almost) >> They ALL just say it was "90" (or maybe "90 degrees"). >> >> The easiest way to avoid the confusing relationship between degrees >> Celsius and kelvins is to eliminate degrees Celsius entirely. >> We don't even need to use big numbers if we measure relatively. >> >> It's just like measuring elevations from sea level. >> If the distance from the center of the earth can be measured in metres >> then the height of a mountain above sea level can be measure in metres, too. >> If the elevation of temperature above absolute zero can be measured in >> kelvins, then the elevation of temperature above freezing can be >> measured in kelvins, too. >> >> Same unit, two different things being measured. >> >> >> Bill Hooper >> 1810 mm tall (above my feet) >> Fernandina Beach, Florida, USA >> >> *In all the above, I assume we are only interested in temperatures to >> the nearest whole degree. >> >> ========================== >> SImplification Begins With SI. >> ========================== >>
