The metric system sucks
in [Physics]
|
Prev: connecting Poincare-Luminet Dodecahedral Space with AP-reverse concavity #380 Correcting Math
Next: Hiding random?
From: Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. on 8 Feb 2010 03:11 I totally agree. Traditional Imperial units are simple and natural: 1 furlong = 660 feet 1 mile = 5280 feet 1 fathom = 6.08 feet 1 acre = 43,560 sq feet 1 pound = 16 oz 1 stone = 14 pounds 1 hundredweight = 112 pounds 1 ton = 2240 pounds What can be simpler?! I mean, that's why it is called "hundredweight": because it is equal to 112 pounds! Everybody knows that 100 = 112. Well, more or less. Or thereabouts. Good enough for precise engineering. On Feb 2, 2:54 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > I. Introduction > > LEFTIST POLITICS is one of the great errors of our age. [ By leftism I > mean specifically the quasi-religious crusading ideology identified by > Ted Kaczyncki (I always have trouble spelling that name!) > No doubt. Foreign languages like Polish are clearly not your forte. > > , and not (as > he pointed out) any policies that happen to fall on the left-wing side > (which I support myself when it comes to economic matters). ] Leftists > attempt to insinuate themselves in every field in which they can, > contaminating it with their poison. It is imperative, then, that they > be stopped wherever this can be done without injury. > > One such place is the imposition of the metric system. All conversion > to the metric system today, and not only that compelled by government, > can safely be put under this head, as anyone that had good reasons to > convert unrelated to ideology would have done so already. Besides this > political argument, there are many inherent reasons to consider the > metric system distasteful, especially when given universal > application. > > It should be noted that arguments over current systems of measure have > nothing to do with pseudohistorical speculation about ancient systems > of measure. Any attempt by pro-metric advocates to link opposition to > metrication with that ought to be dismissed, just as an attempt by pro- > fluoridation sources to link opposition to it with claims of a > communist conspiracy. > > The metric system for our purposes can be identified with the SI > [ Note that SI is a French abbreviation, reminding everyone of the > French nature of the idea ], for thee great crusade to impose metric > did not truly gain momentum until the codification of the SI, and it > has decreed within itself that it should replace all other metric > units. Not only, then, the replacement of traditional [ i.e. English > or Imperial ] units with those of the metric system, but often the > replacement of older metric units, can be considered a target. > > II. Pro-metric bias > > As with other leftist causes, metrication (an ill-formed word; anyone > with a decent education would write 'metrification' - I use it only > because it is now standard) relies on the subversion of language. By > language is meant not only the way we speak but also the way we think, > as foretold by Orwell (This was one of the areas where Orwell really > was far-sighted. It's no accident that his Oceania had adopted the > metric system!), for our higher thinking is done in accordance with > language. They manipulate our minds to believe silly things in favor > of metric, when an accurate look would show otherwise. Let's take some > examples. > > The first of all the metric lies is that we must adopt metric because > it is the world standard. The costs of translation between languages, > though, certainly exceed those of translation between measuring > systems, should we then ask that everyone speak only English? Again, > learning a new system of measure is much easier than learning a new > language; for example, all halfway-educated Americans know metric, but > comparatively few are fluent in any foreign language. It is surely not > unreasonable to ask that people learn our system of measures when > needed for communication; it is certainly much less an imposition than > the need to learn English. And there is no more reason that we should > necessarily adopt metric than that they should adopt our measures, > when standardisation really is required, which is much less often than > they would have you believe. > > The next is the concept that metric is somehow more scientific, or > that scientific calculations can only properly be done in it. Of > course, the people this message is targeted at are not scientists; > they get an impression that the traditional units are always and only > a waste of time, and that one must convert to metric before doing any > serious calculation with them. No system (other than natural units) > can be said to be more scientific than any other, and I shall have > more to say about this below in sections IIX and IX. > > News stories related to mishaps surrounding unit conversion invariably > get attributed by the media and influential sources to use of the > traditional units, which is absurd. It could as easily be said that > they are due to the metric system, for if English units were used > consistently, they would be avoided. For a real example, just look at > the Mars Climate Orbiter crash: if NASA has never moved toward metric > conversion (which they had no need to do, and only started because of > an amendment snuck into a 1988 Act of Congress), it could not have > happened. > > Finally, and related to my first point, the cost of converting to > metric is constantly minimised, and invariably said to pay for itself > within a short time even though there is little evidence for it. But > the reverse - that converting from the metric to the traditional units > - is never examined at all, and surely if it did ever come up they > would do the exact opposite. This shows that they are not truly > interested in saving money or time at all, but only in promoting > metric for its own sake. > > Further examples can be drawn from my Section V and exposure of one > campaigner's fallacy. Finally, I should point out the classic book > 'The Metric Fallacy' (http://books.google.com/books?id=2AYKAAAAIAAJ&dq=pro-metric&source=gb... > ), possibly the most comprehensive investigation of how measures are > really used. Everything in it remains true in principle today, and it > shows that the pro-metric people were spewing the same nonsense then > as now. > > III. Metric prefixes > > The system of prefixes is the unique character of the metric system, > abstracted from the particular units used, and is what distinguishes > it from all pre-metric proposals of a decimal system. This is often > touted as an advantage of metric, but I think it is more usually a bad > thing. How can that be? > > Above I compared the difficulty of learning measures with that of > learning a language, and that is appropriate here also; for learning > the differing words for the units in the traditional system - as inch, > foot, mile or ounce, pound, ton - as not much more difficult than > learning a similar number of new words in a language, or not very hard > at all. In addition, the traditional names are shorter and can't be > confused. > > More serious is the competition between prefixes and scientific > notation. There is no question about the convenience of the > exponential notation where large ranges of numbers must be used, or > where values far out of ordinary experience occur in science. And > before SI, physicists often used only scientific notation with the > base units (i.e. CGS). However, now with SI, the metric bureaucrats > and their mindset are pushing the universal applicability of SI > prefixes, introducing absurdities like 'zepto' and 'yotta' and God > knows what will follow them. This is insane: how can we expect people > to keep straight so many prefixes? In contrast scientific notation is > always unambiguous. > > IV. The SI 'base units' > > And now, for the most dramatic claim of them all: the SI derives every > unit we need from _just seven base units_! Strange, and I thought the > CGS system needed only three: why is seven any better? In fact only > three are sufficient (four if you use the SI electrical units, see > Section IIX), and the others redundant. > > The Kelvin is merely a unit of energy given by Boltzmann's 'constant', > not a new base unit. The fact that temperature really is just energy > on a microscopic scale is the most important concept in > thermodynamics, yet our supposed perfect system of measures explicitly > denies it! You will see, if you work out the formulae (actually you > shouldn't have to if you're reasonably smart and have learned > thermodynamics) that they all can be written with 'T' in place of > 'kT', and work perfectly. > > The mole is not a unit at all, but a NUMBER - Avogadro's number. It's > related to the 'unit' 1 by that number, a conversion factor. Calling > it a separate base unit is as silly as saying the mile and inch are > both base units of the English system! (Come to think of it, some > metricists might, solely because their ratio isn't a power of 10 (as > if there were anything inherently special about 10!).) The 'unit' 1, > of course is one of mathematics, not physics, though there was a > serious proposal to officially designated 1 an SI unit named the 'uno' > - fortunately, the scientists had more sense than the French > bureaucrats and shot that down. > > The candela is not a unit either. It's a response curve for the human > eye, which by the way is known to be inaccurate. Calling that a > physical unit is preposterous. If that's a base unit, then so is 'how > bad something smells' and 'how musical a sound is'. The response curve > of the eye is not not useful, of course, it's just not part of > physics. > > V. Time and angle > > It is no doubt familiar that our customary units of time, which are > nearly universal, involve factors of 60 and 24, and the units of > angle, of which the degree at least is still universal, factors of 60 > and 90/360. These are highly divisible numbers in the mathematical > sense, and no doubt highly divisible numbers are preferable to those > that are not, ex. 113 or 38, if all other things are equal. But > according to the standards that the metric system acknowledges, all > bases are not equal: the decimal system is preferred, and they do have > a point, clearly. > > Indeed, the argument for decimalisation of time is certainly stronger > than that for decimalisation of other common measures. We do freely > mix hours and minutes, or minutes and seconds. Conversion between the > units is very common, so much so that the most common values are > embedded in the minds of everyone, such as 48 hours = 2 days. And yet, > arguments about the inconvenience of conversion and mixing units are > the most used for the superiority of the metric system, in spite of > the fact that in most applications of length, weight, volume, etc. we > have eliminated the necessity for conversion, while in applications of > time they have not - and yet never mention it. This can't be honest. > > In angle, the smaller divisions... > > read more »
From: Androcles on 8 Feb 2010 04:06 "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_bender_1900(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:101413d7-f887-4550-a723-b8a0a322b2a9(a)x10g2000prk.googlegroups.com... I totally agree. Traditional Imperial units are simple and natural: 1 furlong = 660 feet 1 mile = 5280 feet 1 fathom = 6.08 feet 1 acre = 43,560 sq feet 1 pound = 16 oz 1 stone = 14 pounds 1 hundredweight = 112 pounds 1 ton = 2240 pounds What can be simpler?! I mean, that's why it is called "hundredweight": because it is equal to 112 pounds! Everybody knows that 100 = 112. Well, more or less. Or thereabouts. Good enough for precise engineering. ============================================== Exactly. American tons are 2000 lbs. This meant the Liberator (8000 lbs) could carry a higher tonnage of bombs over Germany than the Lancaster (22,000 lb) ... well, more or less. "The B-24's spacious slab-sided fuselage (which earned the aircraft the nickname "Flying Boxcar")] was built around a central bomb bay that could accommodate up to 8,000 lb (3,629 kg) of ordnance." The Sherriff's dept were searching for the escapees over a 160.9344 kilometer radius.
From: Mike Dworetsky on 8 Feb 2010 06:15 Androcles wrote: > "Mike Dworetsky" <platinum198(a)pants.btinternet.com> wrote in message > news:8KednRJawL4zTPLWnZ2dnUVZ8nidnZ2d(a)bt.com... >> Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. wrote: >>> I totally agree. Traditional Imperial units are simple and natural: >>> >>> 1 furlong = 660 feet >>> 1 mile = 5280 feet >>> 1 fathom = 6.08 feet >>> >>> 1 acre = 43,560 sq feet >>> >>> 1 pound = 16 oz >> >> Only in avoirdupois weights. In troy weights, 12 ounces = 1 pound. >> Avoirdupois ounces are lighter than troy ounces. Complicated? You >> bet. Troy weights are most usually used for gold and silver, >> avoirdupois for most everything else. >> >> Thus the old riddle, "Which weighs more, a pound of feathers or a >> pound of gold?" The clear answer is a pound of feathers, weighed in >> avoirdupois (453.6 gm), while a pound of gold is 373.2 gm. >> >>> 1 stone = 14 pounds >>> 1 hundredweight = 112 pounds >>> 1 ton = 2240 pounds >> >> That's a "long ton" or English equivalent to a metric tonne of 1000 >> kg. The usual Imperial ton is 2,000 pounds, I think. > ================================================= > Back-arsewards... the Imperial ton is 20 cwt = 2240 lbs, the unusual > American > short ton is 2000 lbs. Not many years ago a British billion was a > million million, not the thousand million that it has since become. > > So there are three ways of looking at tons: Imperial 2240 lb (1016 kg, I should have checked) Metric 1000 kg USA/Canada 2000 lb (907 kg) -- Mike Dworetsky (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
From: Androcles on 8 Feb 2010 06:57 "Mike Dworetsky" <platinum198(a)pants.btinternet.com> wrote in message news:Fp6dnUqcaKLOb_LWnZ2dnUVZ8hSdnZ2d(a)bt.com... > Androcles wrote: >> "Mike Dworetsky" <platinum198(a)pants.btinternet.com> wrote in message >> news:8KednRJawL4zTPLWnZ2dnUVZ8nidnZ2d(a)bt.com... >>> Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. wrote: >>>> I totally agree. Traditional Imperial units are simple and natural: >>>> >>>> 1 furlong = 660 feet >>>> 1 mile = 5280 feet >>>> 1 fathom = 6.08 feet >>>> >>>> 1 acre = 43,560 sq feet >>>> >>>> 1 pound = 16 oz >>> >>> Only in avoirdupois weights. In troy weights, 12 ounces = 1 pound. >>> Avoirdupois ounces are lighter than troy ounces. Complicated? You >>> bet. Troy weights are most usually used for gold and silver, >>> avoirdupois for most everything else. >>> >>> Thus the old riddle, "Which weighs more, a pound of feathers or a >>> pound of gold?" The clear answer is a pound of feathers, weighed in >>> avoirdupois (453.6 gm), while a pound of gold is 373.2 gm. >>> >>>> 1 stone = 14 pounds >>>> 1 hundredweight = 112 pounds >>>> 1 ton = 2240 pounds >>> >>> That's a "long ton" or English equivalent to a metric tonne of 1000 >>> kg. The usual Imperial ton is 2,000 pounds, I think. >> ================================================= >> Back-arsewards... the Imperial ton is 20 cwt = 2240 lbs, the unusual >> American >> short ton is 2000 lbs. Not many years ago a British billion was a >> million million, not the thousand million that it has since become. >> >> > > So there are three ways of looking at tons: > > Imperial 2240 lb (1016 kg, I should have checked) > Metric 1000 kg > USA/Canada 2000 lb (907 kg) > =============================================== I suspect the little red schoolhouses of the colonial backwoods confused the hundredweight (cwt) with a 100 lbs and by multiplying that by 20 arrived at the short ton. The tun is a large barrel, of course. http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1005/1428697981_1cfdd49674.jpg http://www.picturesofengland.com/img/L/1020188.jpg An imperial gallon of water weighs 10 lb, an American short gallon weighs ~ 8.33-8.35 lb. Thus American cars get fewer mpg. US liquid gallons 1 MPG ~ 0.425 km/l 235/MPG ~ l/100 km 1 MPG ~ 1.201 MPG (Imp) Imperial gallons (UK) 1 MPG ~ 0.354 km/l 282/MPG ~ l/100 km 1 MPG ~ 0.833 MPG (US) What is extremely unlikely is the Americans changing the mile, their roads are laid out in a 1 mile grid all over the Great Plains as you can see using Google Earth. The word "mile" comes from the Latin "mille" and was a thousand paces by marching Roman troops.
From: Andrew Usher on 8 Feb 2010 09:00
On Feb 8, 2:11 am, "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_bender_1...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > I totally agree. Traditional Imperial units are simple and natural: > > 1 furlong = 660 feet > 1 mile = 5280 feet These are unfortunate results of trying to put the Anglo-Saxon distance units into the Roman-based system. > 1 fathom = 6.08 feet 6 feet, of course. The value 6.08 feet was never actually used. > 1 acre = 43,560 sq feet And 1/640 sq. mile, which allows a section to be conveniently divided. > 1 pound = 16 oz > 1 stone = 14 pounds > 1 hundredweight = 112 pounds > 1 ton = 2240 pounds Aberrant British units. In any event, it's a completely dishonest tactic that you ignore my real essay in favor of your silly ridicule. The point is the SI mafia whose only purpose is to impose SI units everywhere. Andrew Usher |