I use this as an example for interval vs ratio; you can’t halve Celsius because it’s an interval scale where zero is arbitrary. Kelvin is ratio as it has an absolute zero-- you very much can halve it and doom near the entire planet next summer
How so? Absolute zero is the coldest possible temperature, it’s physically impossible for an object to be colder. Saying that’s arbitrary is like saying it’s arbitrary to define 0 m/s as not moving.
The context of… reading the fabric of the universe?
You’re right, that is totally irrelevant to… a physicist.
I see you’re trolling, so I look forward to your condescending response, but to be successfully condescending you have to be at least somewhat convincing in displaying intelligence, if you can manage that then this whole argumentative act will go much better and people will get much angrier.
TLDR, Try the same troll tactic but with less incompetence for better results.
What? What context? The scale is the same as Celsius which is derived from the properties of water. And 0K is when there is absolutely no heat energy in the thing being measured. There is no context where this is not the case.
The one where a human is speaking in English and referring to a season and the temperature is more than significant context. I hope this helped you; it seems that you’re one of those people who lack the capacity to infer from available data.
People don’t use Kelvin when referring to seasons. Sure, there’s plenty of ambiguity if someone says it’s 32° out without specifying the units, and you can infer from context, but that has nothing to do with Kelvin starting at absolute zero. Saying “degrees” immediately rules out Kelvin as a unit.
I use this as an example for interval vs ratio; you can’t halve Celsius because it’s an interval scale where zero is arbitrary. Kelvin is ratio as it has an absolute zero-- you very much can halve it and doom near the entire planet next summer
arguably setting zero to absolute zero is just as arbitrary
How so? Absolute zero is the coldest possible temperature, it’s physically impossible for an object to be colder. Saying that’s arbitrary is like saying it’s arbitrary to define 0 m/s as not moving.
It’s still assuming a scale. It’s actually worse because the scale is implied by context.
The context of… reading the fabric of the universe?
You’re right, that is totally irrelevant to… a physicist.
I see you’re trolling, so I look forward to your condescending response, but to be successfully condescending you have to be at least somewhat convincing in displaying intelligence, if you can manage that then this whole argumentative act will go much better and people will get much angrier.
TLDR, Try the same troll tactic but with less incompetence for better results.
Zero kelvin is very contextually useful. Put very simply it literally relates to the motion of atoms. At zero, they move zero.
What? What context? The scale is the same as Celsius which is derived from the properties of water. And 0K is when there is absolutely no heat energy in the thing being measured. There is no context where this is not the case.
The one where a human is speaking in English and referring to a season and the temperature is more than significant context. I hope this helped you; it seems that you’re one of those people who lack the capacity to infer from available data.
People don’t use Kelvin when referring to seasons. Sure, there’s plenty of ambiguity if someone says it’s 32° out without specifying the units, and you can infer from context, but that has nothing to do with Kelvin starting at absolute zero. Saying “degrees” immediately rules out Kelvin as a unit.
Being condescending actually doesn’t help a conversation.
Halving something requires a scale…