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 8 Feb 2010 09:03 On Feb 8, 5:57 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote: > =============================================== > 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 In fact, a tun of water is about 2100 lb - in between the American and British values. Andrew Usher
From: Andrew Usher on 8 Feb 2010 09:13 On Feb 7, 8:32 am, nos...(a)nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote: > >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? > > So, how would *you* choose a resistor and a capacitor to produce > a desired time constant, without using ohms and Farads? Oh, I see, the equation T = 1/(2pi RC) works in SI units (and also in Gaussian units). This doesn't change the principal scientific objection, though. Andrew Usher
From: Joshua Cranmer on 8 Feb 2010 09:21 On 02/08/2010 09:00 AM, Andrew Usher wrote: > 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. Well, it does blow holes in your notion that SI is more idiosyncratic than Imperial units. I mean, 8 fluid ounces make one cup, 16 avoirdupois ounces make 1 avoirdupois pound, and 12 Troy ounces make 1 Troy pound... and, of course, each ounce is quite distinct from the other. It's not like a fluid ounce of water weighs 1 troy ounce or 1 avoirdupois ounce, god forbid. -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
From: Andrew Usher on 8 Feb 2010 10:18 On Feb 8, 8:21 am, Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeo...(a)verizon.invalid> wrote: > On 02/08/2010 09:00 AM, Andrew Usher wrote: > > > 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. > > Well, it does blow holes in your notion that SI is more idiosyncratic > than Imperial units. I mean, 8 fluid ounces make one cup, 16 avoirdupois > ounces make 1 avoirdupois pound, and 12 Troy ounces make 1 Troy pound... > and, of course, each ounce is quite distinct from the other. It's not > like a fluid ounce of water weighs 1 troy ounce or 1 avoirdupois ounce, > god forbid. That's easy to explain historically - the US volume units originate before anyone used the fluid ounce in English. The Imperial units came later and they do have the correct fluid ounce (= 1 oz. av. water). You probably know that I use certain British spellings, and have as long as I have been on the internet. This is intentional as I believe that there should be an international standard spelling for English. Similarly there should be an international standard for English units and it's obvious that this should have Imperial volume units but US weight units (although we should join the British in abolishing the troy pound which has no purpose but to cause occasional confusion). Andrew Usher
From: Darwin123 on 8 Feb 2010 10:51
On Feb 2, 5:54 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!), 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? The standardization problem is not divided into "left" and "right". The issue of metric versus English is very similar to the argument about whether to buy a PC or a Mac computer. The software and even some hardware parts are incompatible because of this difference. No one (?) will claim that an IBM clone is any more Communist than a Mac, nor will they claim that a Mac is any more communist than a PC. The main problem isn't in dictionaries. It is mostly in the machine shop. Many of the devices in the machine shop are calibrated to either the metric or the English system. A good machine shop should have devices that are calibrated to anything the customer brings in. Having both metric and English running around doubles the cost of a machine shop. The argument for standardization is not the cost of translation. The problem is that machine parts are not compatible. This can best be seen in the automotive industry. Parts made metric are off and can't be used in English systems, and visa versa. This makes it harder to import or export stuff. If you buy a foreign car, it is difficult to find compatible parts to use in repairs. Therefore, once one buys a foreign car one is obligated to buy foreign. However, the same goes for people buying American stuff. My person experience is with optical devices and breadboards. Suppose one makes a breadboard with holes drilled at distances on or about 1 inch apart. A metric breadboard is drilled at 2.5 inches apart, while an English system. breadboard is drilled at 2.54... apart. I am not gung ho on standardizing our units. I think that it is arguably unnecessary. The costs of changing over will be comparable to the costs of keeping the status quo. Having given my argument for standardization, let me say that I don't think metric belongs everywhere. I don't think it belongs on the road. If we changed our traffic signs from English (miles) to metric (kilometers), there would be an increase in traffic accidents. I don't think it is worth the cost in lives. There are few machines calibrated to miles or kilometers. This would be like the U.S. changing right side of the street driving to left side of the street driving. There would be an increase in accidents since most drivers would be used to the other way of driving. You wouldn't see such a problem in the machine shops. Of course, if the U.S. did change, new drivers in the states would have fewer accidents. However, the increase due to this would be small. I object to you blaming the standardization issue on "leftists" and "liberals." There are as many capitalists on the standardization side as Socialists. It has nothing to do with "political correctness," "the abuse of language," or anything other "political agenda". |