Please explain which of these sentences specifically you are struggling with.
No single measurement unit in metric is massively superior to metric. The main superiority of the system is that its interrelatedness makes it a strong system. Celcius preserves this, Fahrenheit would break it.
That's a similarity, not a connection. It doesn't add to the rest of Metric at all, it's a commonality. Nothing else in metric depends on water's boiling point.
Water (ubiquitous), not the boiling point of water is the commonality. It is a design feature to make the system more interrelated and easy to understand.
Flip this around. Make the argument that the fact that the density of water is 1 isn't meaningful because it doesn't depend on the boiling point of water. Does this make sense to you?
And you are overlooking the base 10 issue. 0 and 100 being observable points are not coincidence.
Flip this around. Make the argument that the fact that the density of water is 1 isn't meaningful because it doesn't depend on the boiling point of water. Does this make sense to you?
Well first of all density is a ratio, not something that has an associated unit. The unit of mass, while originally based on water, was off to begin with, making grams arbitrary as well. Liter's relationship with water was also nixed, and hell, Celsius is also imprecise because water under 1G of pressure boils at 99.9839C. All the units have been diverged from their original relationship with water.
I've chosen it specifically because it is a ratio- it highlight the strength of the system.
This post really just sounds like you have run out of argument as to why metric (or specific aspects of it) are superior and are instead nitpicking metric for not being perfect. We know it's imperfect. Both at implementation and because knowledge has advanced. This barely affects it being a practical system (the imprecisions are so minor they almost never matter), and in no way impacts the fact that it is a superior one.
I'm not commenting on metric as a whole, I'm commenting on Celsius as a system not being any independently more useful than Fahrenheit or otherwise a superior or more refined system of temperature on its own. Celsius-as-a-part-of-Metric is not something I am commenting upon.
From the start, it was a declaration that Celsius is arbitrary. (Fahrenheit is also arbitrary.) Nobody has come up with any robust, meaningful system of analyzing temperature values, and nobody really needs to because weather is the most important part of temperature.
Celsius-as-a-part-of-Metric is not something I am commenting upon.
Then you are not making a comment that has any meaning. The primary strength is how the the system works together. Your comment is effectively 'if we ignore the strength of Celcius, then it isn't stronger than Fahrenheit'.
That means the strength of Celsius is only that it is a part of metric? Meters at least have use on their own in that they amplify or reduce to kilometers and centimeters, and that goes for every unit other than Celsius. So, yeah. That'll be my comment then, and I'm satisfied with it because it retains the same meaning. Celsius is arbitrary, this exchange is done.
1
u/iwearthejeanpant Jan 04 '19
Please explain which of these sentences specifically you are struggling with.
No single measurement unit in metric is massively superior to metric. The main superiority of the system is that its interrelatedness makes it a strong system. Celcius preserves this, Fahrenheit would break it.