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 5 Feb 2010 21:40 On Feb 4, 8:22 pm, William Hamblen <william.hamb...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >Pardon me, but what do you mean here? How would you get the density of > >water in pounds per cubic foot? > > Weigh on a balance? BTW, a cubic foot of water is about 62.4 pounds. No, they've measured it to much greater accuracy than one could oneself. The point is that you would look it up if need be, and if it's only given in metric you would have to convert (but only once, of course). > The pound is a unit of mass (2.205 pounds per Kg, roughly). There is > a pound force that has the same name but is 4.45 newtons, roughly. Yes, at least you got that right. There's a ridiculous belief in the US that the pound is (only) a unit of force. Andrew Usher
From: Andrew Usher on 5 Feb 2010 21:48 On Feb 4, 8:36 pm, William Hamblen <william.hamb...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >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. In geological fields, to answer his question, feet and inches were extensively used to the 1960s. That's one of the things I had in mind. And physicists quite often use natural units or no units in theory. Andrew Usher
From: Bart Goddard on 5 Feb 2010 22:09 Marshall <marshall.spight(a)gmail.com> wrote in news:2a728d8d-b1d8-4c50-8748- 154960b16cd5(a)y7g2000prc.googlegroups.com: > On Feb 5, 5:58�pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Feb 5, 5:15�pm, "Bob Myers" <nospample...(a)address.invalid> wrote: >> >> > (1) It's inefficient (and has a higher risk of error) to >> > have to deal with two systems, which we effectively >> > are doing now despite being a supposedly "English >> > system" country. >> >> As I and Bart have said repeatedly, the same could be said of >> languages, in some respects more so. Yet the same leftists who want so >> badly for us to go metric are pushing linguistic diversity on us. > > So you are saying that if there is an argument for position X, > and an identical argument for position Y, and there exists a > person who advocates position X but advocates against > position Y, then position X is invalid. Please confirm. No, the argument is a level above that. It is rather a question: If you think it's so all-fired important for easy and accuracy of trade (of both good and knowledge) that we all use the same measureing system, why are you not also arguing that we all use the same language? Please explain this apparent disconnect of your philosophy. Because until you do, you appear to be a hypocrit, or at least ingenuous. B. -- Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
From: Marshall on 5 Feb 2010 22:26 On Feb 5, 7:09 pm, Bart Goddard <goddar...(a)netscape.net> wrote: > Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in news:2a728d8d-b1d8-4c50-8748- > 154960b16...(a)y7g2000prc.googlegroups.com: > > > > > On Feb 5, 5:58 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Feb 5, 5:15 pm, "Bob Myers" <nospample...(a)address.invalid> wrote: > > >> > (1) It's inefficient (and has a higher risk of error) to > >> > have to deal with two systems, which we effectively > >> > are doing now despite being a supposedly "English > >> > system" country. > > >> As I and Bart have said repeatedly, the same could be said of > >> languages, in some respects more so. Yet the same leftists who want so > >> badly for us to go metric are pushing linguistic diversity on us. > > > So you are saying that if there is an argument for position X, > > and an identical argument for position Y, and there exists a > > person who advocates position X but advocates against > > position Y, then position X is invalid. Please confirm. > > No, the argument is a level above that. It is rather > a question: If you think it's so all-fired important > for easy and accuracy of trade (of both good and > knowledge) that we all use the same measureing system, > why are you not also arguing that we all use the > same language? Please explain this apparent disconnect > of your philosophy. Because until you do, you appear > to be a hypocrit, or at least ingenuous. That is impressively asinine. Marshall
From: Mike Dworetsky on 6 Feb 2010 01:35
Mark Borgerson wrote: > 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. That was a shameful episode, recounted in "Longitude" by Dava Sobell. > > > Mark Borgerson -- Mike Dworetsky (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply) |