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 6 Feb 2010 17:03 On Feb 6, 9:46 am, nos...(a)nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote: > 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. Well, I guess you can. But just because you can calculate with barbarous units doesn't make them superior - after all, you'd never allow that for English units, would you? > >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? Logic does not bend to your whims, sorry. > >> 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. Neither does the CGS system, in this sense, and yet scientists used, and sometimes still use, CGS units. Andrew Usher
From: Andrew Usher on 6 Feb 2010 17:06 On Feb 6, 10:47 am, Mark Borgerson <mborger...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > One can still pace out long distances, like the Romans did, and 1,000 > > paces = 1 mile is pretty close. > > You must be counting two steps per pace, then. Yes, of course. If you try to pace out a long distance, you'll see how hard it is to count the other way. > The old Roman pace was two steps or five Roman feet: 58.1 inches. > 1000 of those gets you 0.92 miles. If ~8% error is OK > with you, I guess you can call that a mile. People are taller now. My own average pace is 64". Andrew Usher
From: J. Clarke on 6 Feb 2010 17:28 Andrew Usher wrote: > On Feb 6, 7:01 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > >>> 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. > > Of course I know what 'dimensional analysis' is. It's just not what I > was talking about. If you think feet and inches, pounds and ounces don't have anything to do with it then you don't know what it is.
From: Michael Press on 6 Feb 2010 21:14 In article <hke1l2$n19$8(a)reader2.panix.com>, nospam(a)nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote: > In article <Xns9D144609322B7goddardbenetscapenet(a)74.209.136.95>, > Bart Goddard <goddardbe(a)netscape.net> wrote: > > > >Don't tell me what to do, whippersnapper. I cook a lot > >and I brew a whopping amount of beer. And I gotta say > >that beer made with metric units just doesn't taste as > >good. Malt in pounds, water in gallons, hops in ounces... > >the way God meant it to be! > > Philistine! What happened to hogsheads and gils? Pour me a dram > of the good stuff, while you're at it... Okay, but you will not be happy with it; as it is 8 fluid dram to the fluid ounce. Perhaps a gill would be more to your liking. -- Michael Press
From: Michael Press on 6 Feb 2010 23:18
In article <Xns9D169470F2CA7goddardbenetscapenet(a)74.209.136.89>, Bart Goddard <goddardbe(a)netscape.net> 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. 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 pound, shilling, pence, guinea, florin, half-crown, farthing, sixpence, tuppence, halfpence, bob, quid. I was sorry to see them go, and do not even live there. -- Michael Press |