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.
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.
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
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.
Er… every system of measurement is accurate, tautologically.
0°F = 0°F because 0°F = 0°F, by definition.
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.
Perhaps, but that was not the statement. The statement was:
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.
Newton
I dunno. I wouldn’t be surprised if somebody took the time to invent fuzzy measurement unities.
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
Touché but you know what I mean. It’s the most logical to have absolute zero be zero.
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.
But there are multiple that have absolute zero at zero
0°R=0K