I know that it’s denser, but I’m saying there’s not more of it. You have to think of it as a constant volume of air, not a constant volume of space. PV=nRT, where V, n, and R are constant yields lower pressure at lower temperatures.
I’m not sure what that has to do with vacuum fluorescent tubes, though. That has to do with getting the mercury (or whatever) to evaporate in the tube.
Why rescaling is a bad idea:
A change from 26 to 27 is a about a 4% increase. If you changed the scale so that 25 becomes 0, etc., then a change from 1 to 2 sounds like a 100% increase in pressure. Even worse, going from 0 (25) to 1 (26) is an infinite percent increase. This would confuse things.
It also would create problems for the ideal gas law: PV = nRT. So Scientists would stick with a suitable “0 = a vacuum” scale and regular folk would have a different scale. And there’s already too much of that nonsense.
It’s bad enough that you meet people who think 100 degrees is “twice as warm” as 50 degrees (C or F but not K). We don’t need to add to the confusion.
Personally, in regards to weather, I think of “twice as hot/cold” as meaning “twice as far from optimal comfortable temperature”. You wouldn’t say “It was perfect out yesterday, and twice as cold today”, but you might say “It was uncomfortably cold yesterday, and twice as cold today”.
Meh, it happens all the time. No scientist I know works in inches of mercury (I had to look up the conversion before my first post). Scientific work is mostly in hPa or millibars.
I’ve never heard of this, but it’s an elegant and meaningful way to think about “twice as hot (or cold).” I love it!