The metric system sucks
in [Physics]
|
Prev: connecting Poincare-Luminet Dodecahedral Space with AP-reverse concavity #380 Correcting Math
Next: Hiding random?
From: J. Clarke on 6 Feb 2010 07:57 Bart Goddard wrote: > "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. Hey, you're the one trying to tell us that it's the correct term for something else rather than humorous application of an incorrect term.
From: J. Clarke on 6 Feb 2010 07:58 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. At this point, if it meant an end to inane discussions such at this one it would be worthwhile. > Presumably, if a compelling > reason existed, we would have been so compelled, eh? > Afterall, how much have the British really benefitted > from Decimation? It's slightly easier to calculate > change (which the cash register did for them anyway) > but they've lost a certain amount of coolness (and they > didn't have that much to begin with.) > > And for the record, I don't care what system we use. > Units and measurements simply aren't that hard. If > we switched once per month, most of the population > could keep up. I just don't want a bunch of extra > work and hassle dumped into my life by dint of the > weak and illogical excuses given thus far. > > B.
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Feb 2010 08:15 Andrew Usher wrote: > 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. What was used for the chemistry work? What was used in the oil industry? > > And physicists quite often use natural units or no units in theory. > Give an example where physicists use no units. /BAH
From: J. Clarke on 6 Feb 2010 08:00 jmfbahciv wrote: > Antares 531 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? >> Then, I guess the month should be replaced with a metric month of >> 100 days and the year extended to a metric decimal multiple of 1000 >> days. >> > when the moon's orbit can be divisible by 10 days. Thoughtless of those silly Frenchmen to not adjust the orbit of the Moon when they were making up their silly system. > > /BAH
From: J. Clarke on 6 Feb 2010 08:01
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. Then you've never done it. That's OK--I knew a PhD aeronautical engineer who worked on the ME-262 who had never heard of it either. |