- cross-posted to:
- science_memes@mander.xyz
- cross-posted to:
- science_memes@mander.xyz
You must log in or register to comment.
-40°C 🤝 -40°F
Yeah, they kinda relate 🥶.
You mean…
-40°C = (-40-32)/18*10
Kelvin and Celsius are literally the same just offset by 273.15°
Literally the same just different.
Kelvin was developed from Celsius. The only difference is that 0° is based on absolute 0 (because it’s logical and constant) rather than the rough freezing point of water (a vague and inconsistent reference point). Every degree change in one unit is exactly the same change in the other.
And the meme is exactly about not having the same 0 point
deleted by creator
The first 2 panels say that weight and length at least agree on the 0. The last panel says that temperature doesn’t
Except Kelvin aren’t degrees (e.g. it’s just 273’15K not 273’15°K). But a change of one Kelvin is indeed equivalent to a change of one degree Celsius.
Same relationship between Rankine and Fahrenheit.
And 0 Kelvin and 0° Rankine are three same temperature.
In that case I assume it would be 0 Rankine without degrees, too? Because it’s an absolute unit like Kelvin.
It’s still technically defined based on its relationship to Fahrenheit, just like Kelvin was with Celsius until the 60s.
F and C are laterally the same just offset by 32 and scaled by 5/9.
Ehh, they were developed in different ways using completely different reference points
C and K use different reference points too, yet you called them laterally the same.
They have a lot more in common than Celsius and Fahrenheit, which are only related because they are both measures of temperature.
That depends how you count “a lot more in common”. The reference points for zero is much closer for C and F. People commonly use in everyday life C and F, but not K. Should I continue?
Kelvin and Rankine are based.
What’s Ra°? Not Reamur (Re°) or Rømer (Rø°)
I think Ra° is an alternate for Rankine
Rankine is based? The same way pound-mol and 1000th of an inch are based?
AT THAT POINT, WHY NOT JUST USE METRIC o_0
I bite my thumb at Rankine, sir.
Because 0 is not a lack of temperature like the measurements. (With the exception of Kelvin)
And Rankin, which is apparently just the Kelvin for Fahrenheit.
🤢
Sounds funny but really, why would a weight or length measurement start with ≠0?? Like “size of the dick or prince Charles”?
But that argument would go for temperature as well. Yet, here we are with the most commonly used ones having zero as wey more than the “nothing”-level.
Zero comes from experience, at least in Celsius. Its semi-scientifical as water is a pretty big part of our world. For our life and all it is pretty much the turning point, isnt it? But of course it could also be 50 or so, as below is possible
0lbs ≠ 0kg in the absence of gravity.
Wait what? Even if you’re measuring mass both times?
You’re right, “pounds” is ambiguous.
Kilograms are mass, but pounds are weight. Therefore 0 kg = 0 slug, or 0 N = 0 lbs
I thought pounds could be used for either mass or force, and in modern usage just saying “pounds” usually refers to mass. Wikipedia seems to agree:
Sorry, perhaps this is a disciplinary difference. In engineering, physics, and biomechanics (my doctoral specialization), and from a unit standard perspective, the pound representing both mass and weight is a false equivalency born out of convenience. This is why the Imperial standard for mass is the slug, allowing for gravitational acceleration of a mass to equate to a force.
Yeah this is exactly why I was confused. Pounds can definitely be used to measure mass. So the guy was wrong and assuming stupid parameters
If only they made a meter equal a yard. I’m okay with a bigger yard. Let’s do it.
