The metric system sucks
in [Physics]
|
Prev: connecting Poincare-Luminet Dodecahedral Space with AP-reverse concavity #380 Correcting Math
Next: Hiding random?
From: Ken S. Tucker on 5 Feb 2010 03:51 On Feb 4, 7:22 pm, Michael Press <rub...(a)pacbell.net> wrote: > In article > <69011e79-866e-43f3-b01f-bca8a8428...(a)19g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, > "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(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 When we were kids we'd measure time in smokes, like how long does it take to walk from here to there, oh maybe 2 or 3 smokes. Smokes being the number of cig's consumed in the hike. Some of the kids smoked cigars that burned longer, so we went to the standard cigarette. Strange, we'd convey the length by how many smokes you'll need to walk that distance. Ken
From: Androcles on 5 Feb 2010 04:29 "Mike Dworetsky" <platinum198(a)pants.btinternet.com> wrote in message news:xeqdndkzMMsZXPbWnZ2dnUVZ8t6dnZ2d(a)bt.com... > Mark Borgerson wrote: >> In article <gerry-4EAAE0.12594505022010(a)news.eternal-september.org>, >> gerry(a)maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email says... >>> In article <f7jmm5trftkja8ikb1r2lcu6gmthcptdpg(a)4ax.com>, >>> Antares 531 <gordonlrDELETE(a)swbell.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 09:09:55 +1100, Gerry Myerson >>>> <gerry(a)maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email> wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <hkeig101lnd(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. >>>>> >>>> When are they likely to change over to a metric week of 10 days? >>> >>> I believe that idea was tried and found wanting in the earliest days >>> of the metric system in Revolutionary France. >> >> Those pesky days, months and years---are, unfortunately, tied >> to the orbital and rotational periods of the Earth and Moon. Those >> intervals have, so far, not been easy to change! ;-) >> >> Lots of science fiction novels have proposed clocks and calendars >> with more decimal-like intervals. At some point, though, they >> have to define a small integral unit of time or distance. >> >> The meter started out as one ten-millionth of the circumference of >> the earth along a meridian passing through Paris. Just as logical >> as measuring Longitude from Greenwich, I suppose. ;-) > > Not the full circumference, but the length of the 90-degree arc from pole > to equator. > > The decision to base longitude from the Greenwich meridian was at least > reached by an international agreement after long negotiations, and was > done to reduce navigational confusion and the cost of carrying multiple > copies of charts around in every ship. At the time the (serious) choice > was between Washington (US Naval Observatory meridian), Greenwich > Observatory meridian, and Paris Observatory meridian. > At the time Brittania ruled the waves and the only serious choice that mattered was the British choice. Might is right. Since then the USA has had Military Time, Zulu Time, UTC, etc., but Zulu Time was not politically correct even in the USA and they are all still GMT. Using GPS calculations, New York is five hours behind London and hence situated beyond the edge of the solar system, with San Francisco a massive 8 light hours away.
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Feb 2010 08:57 J. Clarke wrote: > jmfbahciv wrote: >> Heidi Graw wrote: >>> >>>> "Andrew Usher" <k_over_hbarc(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>> news:285479b4-f90d-445b-824a-> >>>> In that case, there's no benefit from going metric either. >>>> >>>> Andrew Usher >>> ...and it also means that going metric doesn't necessarily mean >>> it sucks. Given today's computerization of virtually everything, >>> if the programming is done right, one just needs to dial in >>> and the machine will cut to whatever measure it has been >>> programmed for. If you want an ark using the cubits measure, >>> dial in, and be done with it. >>> >>> Anyway, I don't really care what measure is used. All I want >>> is something that works and what will weather a storm, etc. >>> >>> 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... >>> voila! A Heidi Graw special that can never be repeated >>> in exactly the same way. LOL... >>> >> <grin> Then you don't plan to write a cookbook which >> will reproduce the same taste and nutrition. Cooking >> and baking are acts of chemistry. Canning is also chemistry >> plus a dash of physics and a large dose of microbiology. >> Personally, I'd rather be in a chem lab than the kitchen. > > Just a comment but pinch, smidgen, and dash are becoming defacto standard > units--some outfit started making joke measuring spoons of 1/32, 1/16, and > 1/8 teaspoon capacity with those markings, and another outfit picked up on > it, and now I'm seeing them all over the place. > I can't think of anything that would need those measurements unless you were making paella. Crocus pollen is expensive. What gets me are those cooking shows where the cook says add a little bit of salt and then proceeds to dump a handful which would make the food inedible. /BAH
From: Bart Goddard on 5 Feb 2010 08:45 "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote in news:hkg54t01bv4 @news7.newsguy.com: >> "Decimalization" isn't the normal word. Just read the >> newspapers. Indeed, the uproar (much of it comedic) >> in the UK over decimation (their word) > > You do understand, do you not, that they are using "decimation" for its > humorous effect. Decimation, since you seem unfamiliar with it Oh sweet Jesus. I swear snails can fly over some people's heads. -- Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Feb 2010 09:00
J. Clarke wrote: > jmfbahciv wrote: >> Andrew Usher wrote: >>> 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. >>> >> The pharmacist did just that with his calculator for a drug JMF >> had to take 8 hours before chemo. The pharmacist thought >> the answer was wrong and repeated the calculation several times. >> The calculator gave the same answer each time so the pharmacist >> finally packaged the dose. JMF got an overdose. >> >> Not everybody knows how to emulate RPN on a non-RPN calculator. > > If it has to be correct repeat the calculation on different systems. I > remember doing my taxes one year and discovering that the spreadsheet I was > using ("Smart") was giving me incorrect results for multiplication (I don't > remember the numbers now, but it was _bad_--like 2*2=801589). Suspecting > that my CPU was wonky I tried it on a different machine (one downside to > product activation is that this sort of testing becomes difficult or > expensive) with the same result. I had an older version--I installed that > and got the same result, ruling out a defective copy. Smart went back into > its fancy box never to emerge and I did my taxes that year by hand before > evaluating alternative spreadsheets. > However, if you didn't know that you should have a 4 instead of an 8 (looks like your 2*2 became a 2**3) your methods of checking the arithmetic would still validate the original error. /BAH |