The metric system sucks
in [Physics]
|
Prev: connecting Poincare-Luminet Dodecahedral Space with AP-reverse concavity #380 Correcting Math
Next: Hiding random?
From: Andrew Usher on 3 Feb 2010 20:49 On Feb 3, 11:30 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: > >http://www.google.com/search?q=1+cubic+mile+in+fluid+ounces > > 1 (cubic mile) = 1.40942995 × 10^14 US fluid ounces > > > We have machines for tasks like this. > > What makes you think that is the correct number? An axiomatic system > is no better than its weakest axiom. When the Pentium with a > defective math look-up table was circculated, were its answers correct > because they appeared on a screen? If it absolutely must be correct, one should calculate it more than once, of course. I verified that number correct. Andrew Usher
From: Andrew Usher on 3 Feb 2010 20:52 On Feb 3, 2:09 pm, Bart Goddard <goddar...(a)netscape.net> wrote: > > So, while the rest of the world marches on, Americans > > are certainly free to remain behind. > > Right, people who use your preferred system are "ahead" > while anyone else is "behind". This is an odd definition > of "ahead" and "behind", and is, in fact, just a > restatement of the original, unsupported thesis. One of the things I was trying to get it in my essay was how the pro- metric people distort language in order to promote their argument. Usually, when some movement does this, they have a weak argument at the best - at worst they are deliberately lying. I wish everyone responding would read at least Sections I-III and VI of my post (the non-scientific parts), as I should not have to repeat my arguments then. Anyway, it's good to see that at least one person understands me. Andrew Usher
From: Andrew Usher on 3 Feb 2010 20:54 On Feb 3, 10:06 am, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I really shouldn't have to respond to ridiculous stuuf like this! > > The rest of the world just called to say the feeling is mutual. So bullshit is OK, as long as it's on your side? Well that's all I need to know. Andrew Usher
From: Andrew Usher on 3 Feb 2010 20:55 On Feb 3, 8:38 am, Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeo...(a)verizon.invalid> wrote: > If one agrees that the systems of units should be standardized, there > are two plausible choices: everyone goes to Imperial or everyone goes to > SI. From a standpoint of pure economics, the latter makes much more sense.. > > I'm perfectly fine with people advocating the status quo; it's the fact > that Mr. Usher is advocating switching the rest of the world that causes > me to take issue. I'm not advocating that, except possibly where international standardisation is an issue. Andrew Usher
From: Andrew Usher on 3 Feb 2010 20:56
On Feb 3, 7:57 am, "Greg Neill" <gneil...(a)MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > > A meter is too long. If it weren't, the base imperial unit would be > > the yard. But few people find it convenient to express distance in > > yards, so we use feet. > > Strange, I see road signs that express velocities in miles > per hour, not feet per second, and distances between towns in > miles, not feet. And I find that common objects' measurements > are given in inches. Lots of engineering tolerances are given > in 'mils'. > > Do you think perhaps that the choice of unit might depend upon > the discipline and/or relative scale and/or circumstance? Yes indeed, and I believe this is an argument against metric/SI - it doesn't give you a choice of units. Andrew Usher |