The metric system sucks
in [Physics]
|
Prev: connecting Poincare-Luminet Dodecahedral Space with AP-reverse concavity #380 Correcting Math
Next: Hiding random?
From: Matt on 8 Feb 2010 21:56 On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 17:54:44 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher wrote: >On Feb 4, 8:49�pm, Matt <30d...(a)net.net> wrote: > >> Who came up with early units of measure, like the cubit? It wasn't >> some scientist in a lab. The cubit was quite anthropocentric and was >> arguably superior to either the foot or the meter for everyday use by >> humans. > >It can't have been that useful, as it became obsolete. Is there even a >cubit in English units? I suppose it would just be half a yard, >following the Romans. If the pro-metric crowd gets their way, English units will become obsolete. Would their demise mean they "can't have been that useful?"
From: Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. on 8 Feb 2010 22:50 On Feb 8, 6:00 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. > Sounds wonderful! And you want to keep this monstrosity and think that trying to simplify is a "communist plot"? > > > 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. > Into 640 pieces? What's so special about 640? > > > 1 pound = 16 oz > > 1 stone = 14 pounds > > 1 hundredweight = 112 pounds > > 1 ton = 2240 pounds > > Aberrant British units. > Part of the World-wide communist conspiracy to subvert the simple God- given American units, right? > > 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. > No, no. I agree. We should keep the Imperial system, which is "an unfortunate result of trying to put the Anglo-Saxon distance units into the Roman-based system", and the "aberrant British units". Or do you propose to eliminate all units that come from Britain and just keep the God-given American system, which has been given to us not by Brits but by Native Americans?
From: Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. on 8 Feb 2010 22:56 On Feb 8, 7:18 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. > It is a very well established fact that they didn't even have fluids in Britain until we Americans introduced them to fluids in 1776. > > 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). > Brilliant! And the idea of using unrelated units for length, for area and for volume - that's an extra brilliant touch. Makes it so easy to compute area and volume from side length measurements!
From: J. Clarke on 8 Feb 2010 23:10 Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. wrote: > On Feb 8, 7:18 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> 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. >> > > It is a very well established fact that they didn't even have fluids > in Britain until we Americans introduced them to fluids in 1776. Oh, come now, only the British could make a horse drip oil. >> 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). >> > > Brilliant! And the idea of using unrelated units for length, for area > and for volume - that's an extra brilliant touch. Makes it so easy to > compute area and volume from side length measurements!
From: Michael Press on 9 Feb 2010 02:10
In article <hkpov5$k10$1(a)reader2.panix.com>, nospam(a)nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote: > In article <rubrum-D24F2A.11042308022010(a)news.albasani.net>, > Michael Press <rubrum(a)pacbell.net> wrote: > >In article <hkmiud$dqu$1(a)reader2.panix.com>, > > nospam(a)nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote: > > > >> In article > ><307d9f52-e674-403a-ad41-29b831fa1d6d(a)r19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, > >> Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >On Feb 6, 9:46Â am, nos...(a)nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote: > >> > > >> >> Sure do. Â A resistance measured in ohms multiplied by a capacitance > >> >> measured in Farads gives you an RC time constant in seconds. Â 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. Â Yes, the rail-gun fans I know do > >> >> talk about energy in Joules. Â 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? > >> > >> So, how would *you* choose a resistor and a capacitor to produce > >> a desired time constant, without using ohms and Farads? > > > >Rigged question. Those off the shelf items are labelled > >in ohms and farads. > > By calling them "barbarous units", he is implying that there is somtehing > better. I am curious as to what that might be. > > >What is 1 atmosphere in pascal? > > Really close to 10^5. Why? Because anyone who has to do technical work needs to know a bunch of physical constants. If he happens to live in the USA it is no burden to know a few conversion factors. For accurate work, tools are available. $ units 'atm' 'pascal' * 101325 / 9.8692327e-06 $ units 'mile^3' 'cc' * 4.1681818e+15 / 2.3991276e-16 -- Michael Press |