The metric system sucks
in [Physics]
|
Prev: connecting Poincare-Luminet Dodecahedral Space with AP-reverse concavity #380 Correcting Math
Next: Hiding random?
From: Bart Goddard on 6 Feb 2010 07:49 Marshall <marshall.spight(a)gmail.com> wrote in news:3ae95b9a-9fe3-4adb-8be1- 524ff80f99ae(a)a5g2000prg.googlegroups.com: > That is impressively asinine. > Ah, the crushing grip of logic. -- Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Feb 2010 08:05 Bart Goddard wrote: > jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote in news:hkh7r45hcd(a)news3.newsguy.com: > >> Bob Myers wrote: >>> I can't believe this is being seriously discussed in supposedly >>> science-oriented newsgroups. >> <snip> >> >> You are going to have to realize that there exist people who >> don't know there are more than one measurement system and >> that they are not the same. > > That isn't what this discussion is about. Rather, it's about > the weakness of certain arguments. Metric and English systems > have various strengths and weaknesses. "It's antiquated" or > "it's hard to calculate density of water in" or "we use it > and you should copy us" or "if you spend a zillion dollars > now retooling, you'll make it all back in only 1.5 centuries" > simply carry no weight. > > If there's a compelling reason for the US to switch to > metric, I have yet to hear it. If you have a business which wants to sell widgets to people in countries who use metric, you should manufacture your products using screws and bolts and things which are metric. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Feb 2010 08:09 Andrew Usher wrote: > On Feb 5, 8:16 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > >>> True. And anywhere that multiplication or division is required, mixed >>> units will not be used as they become too difficult. >> Now learn about dimensional analysis. Everybody has to deal with >> mixed units. > > Mixed units = feet and inches, pounds and ounces, etc. > > Nothing to do with dimensional analysis. > Pounds/sq.in isn't useful? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Feb 2010 08:10 Andrew Usher wrote: > On Feb 4, 9:22 pm, Michael Press <rub...(a)pacbell.net> wrote: > >> 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? > > Take the approximation pi = 22/7 and you'll get it! Of course, the > only gallon that ought to be used anymore is the imperial, ~277.42 > cubic inches. > >> A mile is a thousand double paces. > > One can still pace out long distances, like the Romans did, and 1,000 > paces = 1 mile is pretty close. > What do you do? Hop? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Feb 2010 08:12
Andrew Usher wrote: > On Feb 4, 9:20 pm, Mark Borgerson <mborger...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >>> 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. > > Yes, but balances are almost obsolete. When measuring force as modern > scales do, the full correction is needed. Where did you get the notion that balance scales are obsolete? Do you really believe that computers replace them? /BAH |