The metric system sucks
in [Physics]
|
Prev: connecting Poincare-Luminet Dodecahedral Space with AP-reverse concavity #380 Correcting Math
Next: Hiding random?
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Feb 2010 09:18 William Hamblen wrote: > On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 08:39:37 -0500, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > >> Are you also advocating dropping the US money which is based >> on decimal? > > Anyway, american customary units have been defined as ratios of metric > units since 1893. The metric system has been legal in the US since > 1866. > > I'm waiting for the weather babe on TV to start giving temperatures in > kelvins. "It's going to be a cold 270 today, so bundle up." > Once upon a time, there were TV weathermen who would mention the different temperature scales just to teach their audience new things. /BAH
From: Richard Tobin on 5 Feb 2010 09:10 In article <4b6a24a5(a)news.bnb-lp.com>, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: >You do realize that most of the cranks in these newsgroups start out >like that, don't you? Usher has been a crank of the nastiest sort for a long time already. Haven't you noticed his hate-filled rants against women cross-posted to sci.math? -- Richard -- Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
From: jmfbahciv on 5 Feb 2010 09:33 William Hamblen wrote: > On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 08:56:28 -0500, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > >> Paul Ciszek wrote: >>> In article <hkbrpu$e0j$1(a)news-int2.gatech.edu>, >>> Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18(a)verizon.invalid> wrote: >>>> On 02/02/2010 11:53 PM, Andrew Usher wrote: >>>> >>>>>> How often do you measure stuff in terms of 10^21? >>>>> Not often, I suppose. But how do you specify, say, the mass of the >>>>> Earth? >>>> Why would people use that in everyday usage? >>> I happen to be reading this thread in sci.geo.geology, FWIW. >>> >> What system do geologists use? There was an argument in >> sci.physics about 12 years ago w.r.t. which system was >> preferred in doing physics work. > > Old physicists used cgs, young physicists use SI. > IIRC the discussion the method preferred seemed to depend on what the specialty. and there was a third system. /BAH
From: Mark Borgerson on 5 Feb 2010 11:18 In article <xeqdndkzMMsZXPbWnZ2dnUVZ8t6dnZ2d(a)bt.com>, platinum198 @pants.btinternet.com says... > 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. Thanks. I missed that factor of four. Nominal 40,000 km circumference divided by 4 = 10,000km = 1x10^7 m. > > 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. The British government also put up the prize that resulted in the Harrison clocks----which made determination of longitude practical. Mark Borgerson
From: Bart Goddard on 5 Feb 2010 15:20
jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote in news:hkh7n14hcd(a)news3.newsguy.com: > And you have to know the load wood will put on your house > supports. Quick, what's the density of wood in metric? B. -- Cheerfully resisting change since 1959. |