You must log in or register to comment.
Celcius is the logical choice. The others are just crazy.
Kelvin and Celsius are the same, just offset onto absolute zero or the water freezing point
Yeah, often it is just way more convenient to use the Kelvin scale without any negative temperatures for some calculations and formulas then Celsius
Since when is 0°C “fairly cold” it’s literally freezing.
0°C is completely fine with jeans and a thick jacket, especially when it’s sunny and there isn’t much wind. It’s cold, but there’s probably not much ice or snow, if anything, probably mostly slush.
Compared to say -20 C where you should have a good ski jacket and ski pants, warm shoes and socks, generally multiple layers everywhere, winter gloves and so on.
But so is 100°F completely fine with a shirt and shorts and some shade.
So basically: |0°F| > |100°F|, where | is the mathematical absolute operator.
0°F is really cold, while 100°F is merely somewhat hot.
It can be -20 C and you can be still fine with jeans and a jacket if it isn’t windy.
What I’m saying is temperature alone doesn’t tell you the whole story.
It is also literally melting.
Based on human perception, based on water chemistry, based on physics.
You’ll be shocked to learn that the distance in Kelvin is also adjusted to water “chemistry”, albeit changing the aggregate state seems more physics to me, since no molceules are reacting with each other.
You can’t change the aggregate state of a single molecule, or how do you mean that? Excluding plasma.
you can of a lot of molecules though. and tgat is classically “physics” rather than “chemistry”. Classical chemistry is reactiona between atoms or molecules to form new ones.
If you get deeper into it, the lines between chemistry and physics blur anyways.
Zero Fahrenheit is the freezing point of brine (of a certain concentration). That’s water chemistry.
Originally, 90F was based on the average human body temperature, but that later changed to 96F, which just goes to show how arbitrary that scale is.
