The metric system sucks
in [Physics]
|
Prev: connecting Poincare-Luminet Dodecahedral Space with AP-reverse concavity #380 Correcting Math
Next: Hiding random?
From: Matt on 4 Feb 2010 20:09 On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 09:30:34 -0800, Uncle Al wrote: >Matt wrote: >> >> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:03:32 -0800, Uncle Al wrote: >> >> >Andrew Usher wrote: >> >> >> >> On Feb 2, 7:06 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> > HEY STOOOPID - tell us how many fluid ounces and how many weight >> >> > ounces there are in a cubic mile of water at 39.20 degrees Fahrenheit. >> >> >> >> Such a problem would never arise, >> >[snip cap] >> > >> >idiot >> > >> >Lying coward. Ambulatory rectal bolus. YOU CAN'T DO IT. Go ahead >> >STOOOIPD - show us your work. >> >> 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? What makes you think it is not? > 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? Of course not. If the tools are available and reliable, the hand-wringing about conversion factors is a pointless, religious rant.
From: Andrew Usher on 4 Feb 2010 20:49 On Feb 4, 7:09 pm, Matt <30d...(a)net.net> wrote: > > 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? > > Of course not. > > If the tools are available and reliable, the hand-wringing about > conversion factors is a pointless, religious rant. Everything Al posts nowadays is pointless. Andrew Usher
From: Andrew Usher on 4 Feb 2010 20:52 On Feb 4, 4:27 pm, Mark Borgerson <mborger...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > That point of decimation brings back memories----when I > worked on highway surveys back in the '60, all the > measurements were in feet---and tenths or hundredths > of feet. Not an inch to be found in the survey logs! I must point out that the normal word is 'decimalisation'. Decimation is something quite different ;) Andrew Usher
From: Andrew Usher on 4 Feb 2010 20:55 On Feb 4, 4:09 pm, Gerry Myerson <ge...(a)maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email> wrote: > In article <hkeig101...(a)news3.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> > wrote: > > > I grew up in the US and cannot think in metric terms so I > > always have to do a conversion to make guesstimates. > > For some strange reason, kilometers seem to take "longer" > > to drive than miles when I drove from Buffalo to Port > > Huron, Michigan. :-) > > Probably because of those metric Canadian hours, what with > each one being 100 minutes long. Actually, I've long thought decimal time wouldn't be a bad idea. But on the other hand, the fact that everyone works with the different units of time shows that non-decimal units are not really confusing to common people, unlike what metric propaganda says. (And if they were consistent, they would decimalise time - and angle, which is still worse, as I explained in Section V of my essay.) Andrew Usher Andrew Usher
From: Andrew Usher on 4 Feb 2010 20:59
On Feb 4, 4:16 pm, Mark Borgerson <mborger...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > I can't believe he couldn't tell you. The density of water (I know in > > my head) is about 62.4 pounds per cubic foot; 62.3 if correcting for > > the bouyancy of air (a detail the metric-philes always omit!). > > If you're really talking about density, (mass per unit volume) the > buoyancy of air has nothing to do with the result. Well, yes, technically. But if you used a weight measured with a scale (any type) the correction does come into account. > If you're talking > about the WEIGHT of a unit volume, then, in some cases, you > may need to correct for the buoyancy of air---which is, of course, > a function of altitude. Yes, if you need to be exact. But an adequate approximation for almost all purposes in most of the inhabited world is that the density of air is 1/800 that of water or 0.08 pounds/cu ft. > > Of > > course it changes with temperature as well; it's rather fortunate that > > water has a much lower thermal expansion than any other liquid at > > normal temperatures. > > (unless, of course, you go below 32F! ;-) No. That's negative thermal expansion! Andrew Usher |