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 08:36 jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote in news:hkjoki21g80(a)news1.newsguy.com: >> 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. > Hypothetically. But note two things: The US doesn't sell widgets, it buys widgets. So your "if-then" is vacuously true. Second, other countries sell stuff to the US all the time with parts that don't fit our official measuring system. Hmmm..... There's still a gap in your philosophy. B. -- Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
From: Bart Goddard on 6 Feb 2010 08:39 "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote in news:hkjp4s1ar1(a)news2.newsguy.com: >> 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. > Right. How could _anyone_ <eyeroll> POSSIBLY <theatrical sigh> disagree with MY point of view. <stomp off, slam the door.> It's just so darn frustrating when you realize you can't justify something that should "obviously" be justifiable. B. -- Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
From: Bart Goddard on 6 Feb 2010 08:46 "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote in news:hkjp4u2ar1 @news2.newsguy.com: >>> 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. > No, spacebrain, my original use of the term was in reference to the British press' humourous use when they were re-doing their money. Your comment was the equivalent of, "Ya know, crows don't always fly in a straight line." Thanks for pointing out the obvious. Now go be quiet. B. -- Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
From: Paul Ciszek on 6 Feb 2010 10:31 In article <3q1nm554bvd9j4iidr32paag2e6hi425er(a)4ax.com>, Matt <30days(a)net.net> wrote: >On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 17:18:26 +0000 (UTC), Paul Ciszek wrote: > >> >>In article <Xns9D15464AACB40goddardbenetscapenet(a)74.209.136.93>, >>Bart Goddard <goddardbe(a)netscape.net> wrote: >>>nospam(a)nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote in >>>news:hke1bi$n19$6(a)reader2.panix.com: >>> >>>> What is the density of water in pounds per cubic foot? >>> >>>As usual, the decimaphile offers us a calculation that >>>1. is already known and 2. nobody ever does. Against >> >>If you mean non-technical people, they get through most of their >>lives without doing any calculations at all. Engineers, on the >>other hand, have to deal with the density of water quite a bit. Things >>get submerged in it, containers are built empty and later filled >>with it, it can end up standing on the roofs of buildings if you >>didn't design them right, etc. > >I think you ascribe too much apathy about units of measure to >non-technical people. They outnumber techies by a large factor. > >And they have need to calculate for various reasons: cost per unit >weight, fuel per unit distance, cost per unit of household energy, >etc. "That's MATH. I was told there would be no math!" In the popular world view, math is considered slightly less useful than latin. -- Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice." Autoreply is disabled |
From: Paul Ciszek on 6 Feb 2010 10:46
In article <03f63d49-497a-41a9-a62b-999716ec03d7(a)t21g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>, Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Feb 5, 2:34�pm, nos...(a)nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote: > >> >> I had an E&M textbook like that once...everything was fine until one of >> >> the homework problems ended with having to find the dimensions of a >> >> solenoid needed to satisfy some condition. �I just couldn't turn the >> >> ESU's or whatever back into meters and amps. >> >> >And did you then realise just how silly SI is for EM calculations? >> >> Um, no. �All of my earlier courses delt with electricity and magnetism >> in SI units and everything made sense. > >SI units make sense? I myself never really understood EM until I saw >the formulae presented in proper units (see Section IIX of my essay). > >>�Furthermore, you buy components >> with values measured in microfarads or millihenries, not dimensionless >> ESU values or whatever it was that textbook used. > >Yeah, but you don't calculate in them, do you? Sure do. A resistance measured in ohms multiplied by a capacitance measured in Farads gives you an RC time constant in seconds. For the rail gun afficianados, the energy stored in a capacitor measured in Joules is one half the capacitance in Farads times the square of the voltage measured in Volts. Yes, the rail-gun fans I know do talk about energy in Joules. I have even used spot-welders where the intensity of the pulse was given in Joules. >They're only used by >convention (Section VII), which actually discredits metric. Just because you personally think you have discredited metric doesn't mean that metric is in fact discredited. How many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg? >>�I don't even know the >> names of any English/Imperial units for voltage, electrical charge, >> magnetic field strength, capacitance, or inductance. > >There aren't any separate ones. Bingo! The English system has no proper units for doing any modern science. -- Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice." Autoreply is disabled | |