=?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_TI-H:_Re:_these_are_surely_things_to_ponder_about__:?


[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

=?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_TI-H:_Re:_these_are_surely_things_to_ponder_about__:?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?-=DE?=




From: Trent Lillehaugen <tllilleh@polymail.cpunix.calpoly.edu>
>David Knaack wrote:
>
>> However, "twice as cold" COULD refer to total heat energy, and

...
>    you guys are taking this WAY too far.  When one says 'twice as
cold',
>rarely do we EVER literaly ever mean it.

True (on both accounts :), I never say 'twice as cold' since, as
I pointed out, it is rather vague.  We don't know the context of
the discussion in which the statment originated, so we don't
know if it was meant literally or not.

>Usually it referes to a tempature drop of a few degrees.. Menaing
>that the CORRECT :) answer is -3 Degrees C

You are assuming that C was the scale used, that was not
stated in the question.
I would agree that the most likely meaning of the statment
was "it will feel twice as cold tomorrow as it feels today",
however, human judgment of temperature is very subjective,
and depends largely on the temperature differance between
the skin and the surrounding environment.  I have no
references to support that "a temperature drop of a few degrees"
subjectivly equates to "twice as cold".

(note, I'm not taking this seriously, the discussion is
intended to be entertaining).
DK