• madjo@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Depends on your measuring tool. A thermometer that measures in K but has an error margin of +2 to -2 K is less accurate than a thermometer that measures in F and has an error margin van -0.1 and +0.1 F

    • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Er… every system of measurement is accurate, tautologically.

      0°F = 0°F because 0°F = 0°F, by definition.

      • applebusch@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Only Kelvin is valid thermodynamically because thermodynamics often needs absolute temperature for the math to work out right. Rankine is only for masochistic idiots who like fucking up their math and having extra stupid constants all over the place to compensate for their shitty unit system.

        • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          Perhaps, but that was not the statement. The statement was:

          Kelvin is objectively the most accurate.

          Functionally, a measurement system cannot be inaccurate. You might define a new temperature measurement in blargs, and define that the room you’re in right now is 1 blarg. It is now an accurate statement to say that the room is 1 blarg. At the time of measurement, it is not possible for that statement to be inaccurate.

      • marcos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        18 hours ago

        I dunno. I wouldn’t be surprised if somebody took the time to invent fuzzy measurement unities.

      • DacoTaco@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        16 hours ago

        I wouldnt call farenheit accurate, but these days it is because its a static number in celcius, which is also an accurate and static measurement that can be repeated billions of times.
        Not because 0 is 0 :p
        In the original farenheit definition my 0 farenheit was not your 0 farenheit hehe

        • Zombie-Mantis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Maybe in some scientific settings, but nowhere else. Why would it be logical to use a temperature system in every-day life who’s base is set to a temperature that doesn’t exist on Earth? Celsius and Fahrenheit are human-scale measurements, useful in daily applications. Celsius is a bit more logic-y, and Fahrenheit is intuitive.

    • warm@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      17 hours ago

      I’m coping, Celsius is just as accurate as Kelvin, because it based on it.

      Kelvin - 273.15 = Celsius

    • Frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      19 hours ago

      They’re both calibrated against a stupid wet molecule that carbon based life on this planet is addicted to.

      Introducing: the Nihon. 0Nh is the freezing point of Nihonium at 1 bar pressure, and 100Nh is the boiling point. Well, theoretical freezing and boiling points. Nihonium is one of those elements that doesn’t stick around long enough to be studied. But we thought really hard about it, did some shit with particle accelerators, and we’re pretty sure these numbers are good.

      • FiskFisk33@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        16 hours ago

        The bar is defined to be close to the atmospheric pressure of one random planet called earth, why choose that as your pressure unit?