The metric system sucks
in [Physics]
|
Prev: connecting Poincare-Luminet Dodecahedral Space with AP-reverse concavity #380 Correcting Math
Next: Hiding random?
From: Bill Owen on 4 Feb 2010 21:11 Andrew Usher wrote: > 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.) This was in fact tried (for time, for a time) during the French Revolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Republican_Calendar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_time The closest they've come to decimalizing angles is the "grad," which is 1/100 of a right angle. -- Bill Owen
From: Bart Goddard on 4 Feb 2010 22:07 Mark Borgerson <mborgerson(a)comcast.net> wrote in news:MPG.25d525fa77809083989a71(a)news.eternal-september.org: >> I must point out that the normal word is 'decimalisation'. Decimation >> is something quite different ;) >> > Especially if you're a legionaire in a misbehaving Roman Legion! ;-) > > I was a bit hasty in following the lead of the person to whom > I responded: > > "It is a fact that in almost all real calculations in > English units, one unit is chosen and it is decimated." > > After you've done that, do you only have 9 units left? ;-) "Decimalization" isn't the normal word. Just read the newspapers. Indeed, the uproar (much of it comedic) in the UK over decimation (their word) of the monetary system is an admission that decimation of the U.S. measuring system would be quite painful. Are we _sure_ it's worth it? B. -- Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
From: Matt on 4 Feb 2010 22:17 On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:58:20 GMT, Heidi Graw wrote: >As for cooking, I use a pinch of this and a pinch of that. >A handful of this or that, add a dollop and a splash... Those are quite anthropocentric units of measure. The metric system is anti-anthropocentric. That's why the metric system sucks. Decimalization is a paradigm. It is not dependent on which base unit is being decimalized. Imperial units are not traditionally decimalized; but they can be, as noted in a previous post which mentioned surveying.
From: Mark Borgerson on 4 Feb 2010 22:20 In article <bd403494-25b9-4839-9897- b34b875ba68b(a)r19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, k_over_hbarc(a)yahoo.com says... > 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. That's not necessarily true either. If you are weighing iron cannonballs on a balance scale using iron weights, no correction is necessary. The same holds true on a balance scale whenever the item and weights are of equal density. If the weights are properly calibrated for their mass in vacuo, you will get the proper in-vacuo weight of the cannonball. > > > 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. As long as you're measuring at sea level. In Denver, it's only about 0.063 pound/cu ft. But you're correct for the vast majority of people, who live at elevations below 1500ft. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-density-volume-d_195.html > > > > 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. Except for mercury, of course. Mercury has a coefficient of thermal expansion of 18e-5, while water is 21e-5. Given that low coefficient I suppose that mercury was used in thermometers, not because it was the best expansion medium, but because of low vapor pressures and high visibility. > > > > (unless, of course, you go below 32F! ;-) > > No. That's negative thermal expansion! Not really---ice has a coefficient of thermal expansion quite different from the volume change with the phase change. Mark Borgerson
From: Michael Press on 4 Feb 2010 22:22
In article <69011e79-866e-43f3-b01f-bca8a84282fe(a)19g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > Yeah, 0F is cold and 100F is hot. > (there are 180 degrees between 32F and 212F, that's how > temperature was unitized, later Celius plagurized the degree, > and screwed it all up. 100 deg F was supposed to be human body temperature. Wait until the clock goes metric. The USA gallon aka Queen Anne gallon aka wine gallon started life as a cylinder 7 inch in diameter by 6 inch high. So why is it exactly 231 inch^3? A mile is a thousand double paces. Canoe voyagers measure portages in rods. -- Michael Press |