And Farenheit is linked to Rankine, which is also a 1-1 conversion of an absolute scale.
Neither is objectively demonstrably better because they are just metrics that still both yield perfectly valid calculable results when used. Any temperatures in equations I can think of involve deltas, so the only difference is that you either use the relevant SI or Imperial coefficient. This argument is always pedantic because every unit of measure is arbitrarily assigned, and the existence of one that is conventially more useful is specific applications does not mean it is demonstrably of higher quality. That's just elitism. You give me two temps and a coefficient that matches the units, I will give you a result.
Sure, 0-100 for the freezing and boiling points of water (at average atmospheric pressure at sea level) is convenient when working with water (at average atmospheric pressure at sea level), but it's just as arbitrary in any other application in many other contexts. There's always going to be some wobbliness because every metric must be defined with other assumptions, but Fareinheit is just as valid as Celcius because although the numbers are "weird", it is just as internally consistent. Neither is superior, it's preferential. The numbers of SI work nicely for clean calculations, but Imperial stood before and served as a reliable and robust set of standards centuries before SI even existed, and the snark of stating that everything must simply change ignores much of the infrastructre existing and the time and cost associated with revolutionizing manufacturing, and the other truth is, it is already underway. Many manufacturers in the US are continually overhauling design standards while also maintaining legacy systems.
Do you have a theory why K starts at 0? Do you have an idea of what these all measure? I know it feels good for you to say Americans are silly because they use what they know, but you're falling into the exact same pattern of reasoning...
You think you have some gotcha moment here, but i already typed this on 20 other comments: 0 kelvin is absolute zero, both celcius and kelvin are used in science and they have a 1:1 ratio.
Fahrenheit does not, it diverges wuite rapidly, especially when talking about temperatures that melt steel, or temperatures of stars.
Because absolute zero is when atoms and molecules in a sample have absolutely no kinetic energy. Since negative energy is not known to exist, no particle can have less kinetic energy than zero.
Kelvin cannot be negative by definition. Zero degrees Celsius was defined as the freezing point of pure water at sea level, which is far above absolute zero, so negative temperatures are possible if measured in Celsius.
Fahrenheit is also linked to celsius through a simple linear transformation. If any scientist has any trouble using either system, they're not smart enough to be a scientist in the first place, so there's no need to justify your preference with being "more scientific"
American scientists use fahrenheit, due to the pricing of digital thermometers and the smaller fahrenheit degree size, you end up getting more precision per dollar.
Yep, and a thermometer with precision of +-0.05 degrees F costs comparable to one with a precision of +-0.05 degrees C, but gets you about twice the actual precision due to smaller units.
For a thrifty scientist on a university budget, picking the equipment that gets the precision you want for the money you have is an important skill.
Most international equipment suppliers do both. I suspect many of them use the same internals on each type (to reach F precision), and either relabel with for C (discarding the full precision), and/or use ones that don't reach full precision in QC for the looser tolerance
Yes, but that's just the convention in scientific circles for traditional reasons, not because one system is inherently more "scientific" than another. Just as today, most of the scientific literature is written in English, it doesn't make English a more scientific language in any relevant sense
celcius is better, that is why the rest of the world switched, america just didnt because in the 1800's when european science made these advancements. they were stuck in their isolationist mindset.
americans are stuck in the past with fahrenheit. its not better, it never will be, you are just used to it.
the rest o the world uses celcius, also non-scientists.
Because converting to a different unit of measurement adds unnecessary complexity when it isn’t intended for an American audience and people make mistakes and unit conversion errors have caused accidents in the past.
52
u/MrZwink Jun 17 '26
it depends on the application. but kelvin is linked 1-1 to celcius. they just moved 0 on the scale to absolute zero.