this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
458 points (96.4% liked)

Science Memes

11130 readers
2724 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
all 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Fleur__@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago

Real metric supremacists be washing their hands with napalm after that handshake

[–] protist@mander.xyz 33 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm assuming this is because the concept of absolute zero did not exist when most of these temperature scales were defined, whereas zero distance and zero weight were easily observable

[–] lowleveldata@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

zero weight were easily observable

how?

[–] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 32 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People looked at yo mama and could immediately conceive of the opposite

[–] lowleveldata@programming.dev 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

conceive of the opposite

Meh I don't believe that they could avoid overshooting to negative weight

[–] _danny@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

How much water, by weight, is in an empty cup? Round to the nearest amount an average 17th century merchant could identify.

[–] BillyTheSkidMark@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I guess in terms of an actual weightless object... Not... But if you have 2 equal weight items, call their combined weight 1 weight unit, take one away, that's half a weight unit, take two away, that's zero weight units.

[–] DroneRights@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago
[–] DroneRights@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago
[–] xkforce@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago (4 children)
[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

And it shouldn't have degrees like Kelvin, right?

[–] sushibowl@feddit.nl 26 points 1 year ago

The Rankine scale is generally measured in degrees. That's because it's defined in terms of the Fahrenheit scale, which is also measured in degrees. i.e. 1 Rankine degree = 1 Fahrenheit degree.

This is not the case for the Kelvin scale, which is defined directly in terms of thermal energy: 1 Kelvin ≈ 1.38*10^-23 J. Coincidentally (but not really of course) this amount of thermal energy is such that an increase of 1 Kelvin corresponds to 1 degree Celsius.

This is rather pedantic, as you could easily define Rankine in terms of thermal energy as well. Some people do this and don't say "degrees" in front of Rankine. Or, you could define the Kelvin in terms of the Celsius, and measure it in degrees.

tl:dr Rankine has degrees, but for mainly historical reasons.

P.S.: Kelvin actually also had degrees until 1968!

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It does share a 0 with kelvin

And F and C share a -44

[–] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

F and C share a -44

I thought it was -40

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 year ago

Maybe they got the 4 part mixed up from the old chem rhyme:

Johnny was a chemist, but Johnny is no more, because what he thought was H~2~O was H~2~SO~4~

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

It's actually -40. Not 44.

[–] xeekei@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

Not if it's an absolute scale, no. And then it does actually agree on what 0 is with Kelvin too.

[–] ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.de 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Someone probably incorrectly wrote Réaumur degrees. (Copy of Celsius but ×0.8 for some reason; somehow stays kinda relevant in 1770-1920 Europe)

[–] user1234@lemmynsfw.com 6 points 1 year ago

°R refers to the Réaumur temperature scale which goes from 0 for freezing and 80 is the boiling point.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

And had the same zero as Kelvin.

[–] jgjl@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Remember kids, if it’s not metric it has nothing to do with science!

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

USGS uses imperial for a ton of publications. As a geographer, I had to get pretty comfortable with both standards.

[–] uis@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Kelvin and Celsius are best buddies.

[–] puchaczyk@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 year ago

I like that °C and K don't point at eachother.

[–] chaogomu@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fun fact;

Fahrenheit and Celsius line up at -40

Fahrenheit and Kelvin line up at 575

Those numbers are not particularly useful, but they are fun to know.

[–] EvokerKing@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I was about to make the same comment. I got bored in math class with a graphing calculator and figured it out lol.

[–] chaogomu@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

I knew about the Fahrenheit and Celsius one as a kid (because the local weatherman pointed it out one winter) but I only looked up the Kelvin one a few years back.

[–] Epicurus0319@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Isn’t Rankine the Kelvin of Fahrenheit

[–] runner_g@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Epicurus0319@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

It was invented by some scottish guy long before we had the means to measure things that would need it, and ever since that multibillion-dollar satellite thing fell to pieces even American scientists use metric units, we learn them in every grade level’s science class and our scientific community has this understandable atmosphere of regret that Congress was too lazy to completely kill off imperial units when they had the chance

[–] lntl@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've always been curious why 32 was chosen for the freezing point of water in Fahrenheit. or was there something else and did that just land at 32?

it's kind of a mystery and i love it

[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 31 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fahrenheit is actually a base-ten system, where 0° was the freezing temperature of a salt/water mixture used in laboratories in the 18th century, and 100° was supposed to be a human's blood temperature. Another convenient perk of the fahrenheit system is that most European weather occurs inside it's 0-100 range.

Eventually Fahrenheit saw the scientific need to know the freezing and boiling point of plain water, but instead of adjusting his system, he just found those values within his system.

[–] Ambiorickx@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

The story I heard, and I don’t know if this is true or not, is that 100 isn’t just a human’s blood temperature, but specifically Mrs. Fahrenheit’s blood temperature.