Another smart question.

[DarkSider]

If today there are 0 degrees Celsius, and tommorow it's going to be twice as hot, how hot will it be tommorow ?
I don't know the answer, just saw this question at brainiacs :p

[ViVi]

17.7 celsius.

[Polo]

273.15 degrees C.

[Bored]

273.15 degrees C

[DarkSider]

Another one :
If you put a cameleon in a room full with mirrors, what colour will it take ?

[Hippie]

a dark reflection of itself

[Polo]

Originally Posted by DarkSider

Another one :
If you put a cameleon in a room full with mirrors, what colour will it take ?

The colour of the light source?

[Charlie_B]

The answers above, working on converting the temperature to either Fahrenheit (Vivi) or Kelvin (Polo, Bored) are both unsatisfactory. Consider the question like this: if it's 1 degree C outside, and tomorrow it's going to be twice as hot, how hot will it be? The question has to be appreciated linguistically, and in normal conversation the answer is more likely to be 2 degrees C than ~300 degrees C or ~20 degrees C. There is an implicit understanding that where a unique scale is specified, that is the scale that you should relate to (especially if, as here, changing scale gives different answers). The only reason to mess around converting scales is an unnecessary aversion to multiplying zero. You should stick with Celsius, and the answer is simple:

0 x 2 = 0

As for the chameleon - they don't change colour based on their enviroment, but based on their moods, so the answer is 'it depends'.

[Nonny]

To answer the chameleon question from a different perspective. As it was stated the room was full of mirrors, but did not contain a light source nor an opening for light...

There is no light to refelect off of the chameleon so it can only be black along with the rest of the room.

Then assuming no-one lets it out before the air runs out, what colour is a an asphyxiated chameleon??

Green.

And charlie is kinda right, they do take on colour dependant on mood, though, sometime that mood has to do with environment, and they can become slightly camoflaged.

Depends on the chameleon though.

[Charlie_B]

Blue and swollen

The question "if there is no light source what colour will (anything) be?" is a whole new can of worms...

[Souls]

Depends on if it's a chameleon that changes colour based on mood or based on surroundings!

If it's based on mood, I'd imagine red. I imagine it'd be irritated seeing everyone else around him!

If it's based on surroundings, I'm going to guess it wouldn't change colour, since it just sees itself.

[Alvestein]

go Charlie_B!

[Maxi]

Originally Posted by Charlie_B

The question "if there is no light source what colour will (anything) be?" is a whole new can of worms...

Got to love those kind of questions! Does a falling tree in a forest make a noise when there's no one to hear it?

[Meneldil]

Originally Posted by Charlie_B

The answers above, working on converting the temperature to either Fahrenheit (Vivi) or Kelvin (Polo, Bored) are both unsatisfactory. Consider the question like this: if it's 1 degree C outside, and tomorrow it's going to be twice as hot, how hot will it be? The question has to be appreciated linguistically, and in normal conversation the answer is more likely to be 2 degrees C than ~300 degrees C or ~20 degrees C. There is an implicit understanding that where a unique scale is specified, that is the scale that you should relate to (especially if, as here, changing scale gives different answers). The only reason to mess around converting scales is an unnecessary aversion to multiplying zero. You should stick with Celsius, and the answer is simple:

0 x 2 = 0

I disagree with this completely, as I feel it implies and propagates a lack of understanding of science and the world around us, and to give an answer of '0' is thoroughly misleading.
Let us take the question at hand and delve right in.
'If today there are 0 degrees Celsius, and tommorow it's going to be twice as hot, how hot will it be tommorow ?'
Let's go back to basics, this is obviously looking at heat - as implied by the word 'hot'. 0 degrees implies, as we know, an amount of heat. To say that twice this amount of heat is the same as itself is self-evidently false.
Doubling this heat does indeed give 273.15 C.

The whole problem, of course, are these somewhat bizarre scales which don't actually start at 0, but misleadingly pupport a different value to be the point of reference.

Perhaps (though only perhaps), if the question were worded:
"If today there are 0 degrees Celsius, and tommorow it's going to be twice the temperature, how hot will it be tommorow ?"
Then I might agree with your argument, Charlie, as 'Temperature' implies taking into account the scale, it is measured on, whilst 'Heat' certainly does not.

[CFalcon]

Originally Posted by Charlie_B

The answers above, working on converting the temperature to either Fahrenheit (Vivi) or Kelvin (Polo, Bored) are both unsatisfactory. Consider the question like this: if it's 1 degree C outside, and tomorrow it's going to be twice as hot, how hot will it be? The question has to be appreciated linguistically, and in normal conversation the answer is more likely to be 2 degrees C than ~300 degrees C or ~20 degrees C. There is an implicit understanding that where a unique scale is specified, that is the scale that you should relate to (especially if, as here, changing scale gives different answers). The only reason to mess around converting scales is an unnecessary aversion to multiplying zero. You should stick with Celsius, and the answer is simple:

0 x 2 = 0

If it's -5 degrees C today, and its going to be twice as hot tomorrow, how hot will it be?

By your logic, -5 x 2 = -10, so -10 is twice as hot as -5.

To avoid any cases like this you must convert to a scale that starts at zero. Whether it's the Kelvin scale or not doesn't matter, it mustn't have any negatives.