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 17 Feb 2010 23:15 On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:06:21 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote: >Andrew Usher wrote: >> Matt wrote: >>> And the Celsius temperature scale is just silly. Why throw away twice >>> the whole-number granularity afforded by the Fahrenheit scale? Or the >>> notion that 100 tends to suggest more of a milestone than 38 as a >>> temperature extreme for comfort? Aren't the metric zealots gaga over >>> powers of ten? Why not use a power of ten to describe a temperature >>> that is extreme but survivable? Sterilizers operate near 100C. But >>> the Celsius scale makes it easier for tabletop chemists to calibrate >>> their thermometers. >> >> No, it doesn't, actually. If you want to measure the boiling of water, >> it isn't any harder to use 212 F as 100 C - and you have to correct >> for pressure anyway, to be accurate enough for calibration. >> >You obviously have not done any arithmetic. That is simply an absurd statement. .... have not done *any* arithmetic?! I would find it hard to believe it to be true of anyone posting here. I suppose some equally absurd scoffing remark could be contrived in supposed refute of my statement. Still, I suspect that everyone posting here has done arithmetic correctly at least once in their life. > Using 212 instead of 100 >is more difficult for every calculation. Or not: 212 - 112 = 100. Easy. 100 - 112 = -12 A negative number which may make subsequent calculations more difficult and subject to error if the sign is dropped. Again, "ease of calculation" is not the only consideration in the real world. Conversational use of measured values has significance, too. Anything below freezing is a negative number in Celsius. Not so handy for numbers which happen often enough in mid-latitude winters. > If you have your computer >do it, it will be wrong. Because ...? > Using 100 implies that you don't have >to do any numbers other than 1. Is zero not a number? So now going metric is about using fewer unique digits in a number? Or not. 1 meter divided by 4 is 25 centimeters. 1 foot divided by 4 is 3 inches. -- Matt
From: jmfbahciv on 18 Feb 2010 08:27 Matt wrote: > On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:06:21 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote: > >> Andrew Usher wrote: >>> Matt wrote: >>>> And the Celsius temperature scale is just silly. Why throw away twice >>>> the whole-number granularity afforded by the Fahrenheit scale? Or the >>>> notion that 100 tends to suggest more of a milestone than 38 as a >>>> temperature extreme for comfort? Aren't the metric zealots gaga over >>>> powers of ten? Why not use a power of ten to describe a temperature >>>> that is extreme but survivable? Sterilizers operate near 100C. But >>>> the Celsius scale makes it easier for tabletop chemists to calibrate >>>> their thermometers. >>> No, it doesn't, actually. If you want to measure the boiling of water, >>> it isn't any harder to use 212 F as 100 C - and you have to correct >>> for pressure anyway, to be accurate enough for calibration. >>> >> You obviously have not done any arithmetic. > > That is simply an absurd statement. > > ... have not done *any* arithmetic?! > > I would find it hard to believe it to be true of anyone posting here. > I suppose some equally absurd scoffing remark could be contrived in > supposed refute of my statement. Still, I suspect that everyone > posting here has done arithmetic correctly at least once in their > life. > >> Using 212 instead of 100 >> is more difficult for every calculation. > > Or not: > > 212 - 112 = 100. > Easy. > > 100 - 112 = -12 > A negative number which may make subsequent calculations more > difficult and subject to error if the sign is dropped. > > Again, "ease of calculation" is not the only consideration in the real > world. Conversational use of measured values has significance, too. > > Anything below freezing is a negative number in Celsius. Not so handy > for numbers which happen often enough in mid-latitude winters. > >> If you have your computer >> do it, it will be wrong. > > Because ...? > >> Using 100 implies that you don't have >> to do any numbers other than 1. > > Is zero not a number? > > So now going metric is about using fewer unique digits in a number? > > Or not. > > 1 meter divided by 4 is 25 centimeters. > > 1 foot divided by 4 is 3 inches. > Did you ever take chemistry in high school? Or physics? Or home economics? /BAH
From: Matt on 19 Feb 2010 19:00 On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:27:06 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote: >Matt wrote: >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:06:21 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote: >> >>> Andrew Usher wrote: >>>> Matt wrote: >>>>> And the Celsius temperature scale is just silly. Why throw away twice >>>>> the whole-number granularity afforded by the Fahrenheit scale? Or the >>>>> notion that 100 tends to suggest more of a milestone than 38 as a >>>>> temperature extreme for comfort? Aren't the metric zealots gaga over >>>>> powers of ten? Why not use a power of ten to describe a temperature >>>>> that is extreme but survivable? Sterilizers operate near 100C. But >>>>> the Celsius scale makes it easier for tabletop chemists to calibrate >>>>> their thermometers. >>>> No, it doesn't, actually. If you want to measure the boiling of water, >>>> it isn't any harder to use 212 F as 100 C - and you have to correct >>>> for pressure anyway, to be accurate enough for calibration. >>>> >>> You obviously have not done any arithmetic. >> >> That is simply an absurd statement. >> >> ... have not done *any* arithmetic?! >> >> I would find it hard to believe it to be true of anyone posting here. >> I suppose some equally absurd scoffing remark could be contrived in >> supposed refute of my statement. Still, I suspect that everyone >> posting here has done arithmetic correctly at least once in their >> life. >> >>> Using 212 instead of 100 >>> is more difficult for every calculation. >> >> Or not: >> >> 212 - 112 = 100. >> Easy. >> >> 100 - 112 = -12 >> A negative number which may make subsequent calculations more >> difficult and subject to error if the sign is dropped. >> >> Again, "ease of calculation" is not the only consideration in the real >> world. Conversational use of measured values has significance, too. >> >> Anything below freezing is a negative number in Celsius. Not so handy >> for numbers which happen often enough in mid-latitude winters. >> >>> If you have your computer >>> do it, it will be wrong. >> >> Because ...? >> >>> Using 100 implies that you don't have >>> to do any numbers other than 1. >> >> Is zero not a number? >> >> So now going metric is about using fewer unique digits in a number? >> >> Or not. >> >> 1 meter divided by 4 is 25 centimeters. >> >> 1 foot divided by 4 is 3 inches. >> > >Did you ever take chemistry in high school? Yes. >Or physics? Yes. >Or home economics? No. You seem to be fixated on laboratory and academic environments. There is a much larger world outside such controlled settings. How about the importance of measuring as opposed to calculating? Note Benford's Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford's_law lists of numbers from many (but not all) real-life sources of data, the leading digit is distributed in a specific, non-uniform way. The higher increments of those nicely spaced divisions into tenths get little use: According to this law, the first digit is 1 almost one third of the time, and larger digits occur as the leading digit with lower and lower frequency, to the point where 9 as a first digit occurs less than one time in twenty. There are reasons why people, left to their own devices, didn't gravitate to dividing real-world lengths into tenths. If one is an adherent of evolution, then *why* did people with ten fingers win out over people with fewer digits? Perhaps because it isn't necessarily fatal to lose a finger. And now a measurement system comes along to enshrine factors of ten for measurements which don't lend themselves to divisions into tenths, when fingers beyond perhaps six or eight were considered expendable by nature. How many fingers does Homer Simpson have? Why are we so accepting of cartoon characters having fewer than ten fingers? Are we really just giving the cartoonist a break? Analogies between the metric system and decimalized monetary systems are bogus. Unlike a unit of length, units of currency have no physical reference in nature. Controlled experiments in a chemistry lab are somewhat analogous to monetary systems in that they, too, deal with contrived situations. The value of an ounce of gold is a cultural convention. The length from here to there is a physical reality regardless of the currency in one's wallet.
From: Andrew Usher on 19 Feb 2010 19:15 On Feb 15, 7:06 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > > No, it doesn't, actually. If you want to measure the boiling of water, > > it isn't any harder to use 212 F as 100 C - and you have to correct > > for pressure anyway, to be accurate enough for calibration. > > You obviously have not done any arithmetic. Using 212 instead of 100 > is more difficult for every calculation. If you have your computer > do it, it will be wrong. Using 100 implies that you don't have > to do any numbers other than 1. This is just retarded. Andrew Usher
From: jmfbahciv on 20 Feb 2010 08:18
Matt wrote: > On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:27:06 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote: > >> Matt wrote: >>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:06:21 -0500, jmfbahciv wrote: >>> >>>> Andrew Usher wrote: >>>>> Matt wrote: >>>>>> And the Celsius temperature scale is just silly. Why throw away twice >>>>>> the whole-number granularity afforded by the Fahrenheit scale? Or the >>>>>> notion that 100 tends to suggest more of a milestone than 38 as a >>>>>> temperature extreme for comfort? Aren't the metric zealots gaga over >>>>>> powers of ten? Why not use a power of ten to describe a temperature >>>>>> that is extreme but survivable? Sterilizers operate near 100C. But >>>>>> the Celsius scale makes it easier for tabletop chemists to calibrate >>>>>> their thermometers. >>>>> No, it doesn't, actually. If you want to measure the boiling of water, >>>>> it isn't any harder to use 212 F as 100 C - and you have to correct >>>>> for pressure anyway, to be accurate enough for calibration. >>>>> >>>> You obviously have not done any arithmetic. >>> That is simply an absurd statement. >>> >>> ... have not done *any* arithmetic?! >>> >>> I would find it hard to believe it to be true of anyone posting here. >>> I suppose some equally absurd scoffing remark could be contrived in >>> supposed refute of my statement. Still, I suspect that everyone >>> posting here has done arithmetic correctly at least once in their >>> life. >>> >>>> Using 212 instead of 100 >>>> is more difficult for every calculation. >>> Or not: >>> >>> 212 - 112 = 100. >>> Easy. >>> >>> 100 - 112 = -12 >>> A negative number which may make subsequent calculations more >>> difficult and subject to error if the sign is dropped. >>> >>> Again, "ease of calculation" is not the only consideration in the real >>> world. Conversational use of measured values has significance, too. >>> >>> Anything below freezing is a negative number in Celsius. Not so handy >>> for numbers which happen often enough in mid-latitude winters. >>> >>>> If you have your computer >>>> do it, it will be wrong. >>> Because ...? >>> >>>> Using 100 implies that you don't have >>>> to do any numbers other than 1. >>> Is zero not a number? >>> >>> So now going metric is about using fewer unique digits in a number? >>> >>> Or not. >>> >>> 1 meter divided by 4 is 25 centimeters. >>> >>> 1 foot divided by 4 is 3 inches. >>> >> Did you ever take chemistry in high school? > > Yes. How did you do your calculations without using scientific notation? > >> Or physics? > > Yes. How did you do your calculations without using scientific notation? > >> Or home economics? > > No. Too bad. You'ld have discovered that using the metric system might have been easier when you needed to adjust the amounts for a recipe. > > You seem to be fixated on laboratory and academic environments. There > is a much larger world outside such controlled settings. > > How about the importance of measuring as opposed to calculating? > the first step is learn about calculating using arithmetic. It is beginning to look like most the nuts posting in this thread have never done that. > Note Benford's Law: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford's_law > lists of numbers from many (but not all) real-life sources of > data, the leading digit is distributed in a specific, > non-uniform way. > > The higher increments of those nicely spaced divisions into tenths get > little use: > According to this law, the first digit is 1 almost one third > of the time, and larger digits occur as the leading digit > with lower and lower frequency, to the point where 9 > as a first digit occurs less than one time in twenty. > > There are reasons why people, left to their own devices, didn't > gravitate to dividing real-world lengths into tenths. > > If one is an adherent of evolution, then *why* did people with ten > fingers win out over people with fewer digits? Perhaps because it > isn't necessarily fatal to lose a finger. And now a measurement system > comes along to enshrine factors of ten for measurements which don't > lend themselves to divisions into tenths, when fingers beyond perhaps > six or eight were considered expendable by nature. How many fingers > does Homer Simpson have? Why are we so accepting of cartoon characters > having fewer than ten fingers? Are we really just giving the > cartoonist a break? Do you enjoy playing dumb? > > Analogies between the metric system and decimalized monetary systems > are bogus. Unlike a unit of length, units of currency have no physical > reference in nature. Controlled experiments in a chemistry lab are > somewhat analogous to monetary systems in that they, too, deal with > contrived situations. The value of an ounce of gold is a cultural > convention. The length from here to there is a physical reality > regardless of the currency in one's wallet. Why do you think chemistry labs exist? do you know what chemists do in the real world? For a start, learn about cement making. /BAH |