The metric system sucks
in [Physics]
|
Prev: connecting Poincare-Luminet Dodecahedral Space with AP-reverse concavity #380 Correcting Math
Next: Hiding random?
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 3 Feb 2010 09:04 Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc(a)yahoo.com> writes: > On Feb 2, 6:47�pm, "Heidi Graw" <hg...(a)telus.net> wrote: > >> Btw, my own husband prefers the metric system. > > And why should his opinion matter, if he hasn't looked at it from the > perspective I have? Should his opinion matter if he has looked at it from the perspective you have? Why? -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: bert on 3 Feb 2010 09:21 On Feb 2, 11:59 pm, Frogwatch <dboh...(a)mindspring.com> wrote: > On Feb 2, 9:19 pm, Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeo...(a)verizon.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > On 02/02/2010 05:54 PM, Andrew Usher wrote: > > > > I. Introduction > > > I know better than to succumb, but oh well. > > > > 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!), > > > That is obviously evidence of a homogeneous ethnic environment where you > > grew up. Eastern European names aren't really that bad to spell. Or > > pronounce, for that matter. > > > > 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. > > > You overestimate the propensity of people to change when there are many > > clear good reasons to do so. Inertia counts for a lot in politics and > > general management. Indeed, it probably counts even more so in politics: > > it's extraordinarily hard to undo something. Just ask the U.S. Congress, > > European Commission, or the Japanese Diet [1]. > > > > 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 ], > > > Oh, so it's bad just because it's French? If you want to boycott French > > ideas, please reverse all of your chemistry knowledge back to > > discussions about "phlogiston" (possibly even earlier). Which probably > > means you should give up all synthetic fibers or drugs. And you'll > > probably need to start learning to sew by hand, for I believe the French > > were instrumental in the development of sewing machines. And the French > > also made significant forays into mechanical looms (including, most > > notably, the Jacquard loom, the first use of programming a century > > before the Babbage engines and two centuries before the first electronic > > computers). > > > And having a French acronym does not necessarily mean it's a French > > invention, to boot. French was, and still remains, an important business > > language. Until the middle of the 20th century, it was more likely to be > > the international language one learned instead of, say, English. > > > > 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? > > > One of the Mars rovers crashed into Mars. Why? Because one group of > > people were using SI units and the others Imperial units. I'm sure that > > the potential damage due to mixing up unit systems is much worse than > > mixing up languages. This would mostly be due to the fact that you often > > calculate using units and not with languages. Unfortunately, trying to > > statically cart around units is a lot harder in practice than you would > > think. > > > > 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. > > > Except the fact that approximately 5.3% of the world population (U.S., > > Liberia, and Burma) uses the Imperial units and 94.8% use SI. Even if > > you want to measure by GDP impact, you've still got a hefty 20-80% split. > > > > 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. > > > The cost is in conversion, period. Mostly because most people of my > > generation would be used to thinking in Imperial units as opposed to SI; > > for Europeans, they would be used to thinking in SI. I have a pretty > > good intuition of what 50�F looks like, but not of 20�C.. The inverse > > would be true for non-Americans. > > > > 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. > > > Here are all of the prefixes that I see commonly used for measurements: > > milli > > centi > > <none> > > kilo > > > Most people will know of "mega", "giga", and "tera" from computers, no > > matter where they live (even if there is confusion between 1024-based > > and 1000-based values for these units). > > > > 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. > > > How often do you measure stuff in terms of 10^21? Indeed, the media > > seems to think that most people already can't handle numbers larger than > > a trillion (million billion and billion billion starts becoming popular). > > > You've magically missed the argument that most people use when > > advocating metric: units are a lot more intuitive. How many feet are in > > a rod? How many square feet per acre? Acres per square mile--are you > > talking about statute or nautical miles? Please convert knots to miles > > per hour. And then there are fluid ounces (distinct from avoirdupois > > ounces and troy ounces!), gills, cups, pints, quarts, gallons... and > > barrels and hogsheads. > > > So, if the United States imports 13.1 million barrels of oil per day, > > and the average car gets 27 mpg, how many miles would the average car be > > able to drive on the imported oil, assuming perfect conversion of oil to > > gasoline? > > > [ Snip hoopla about base units ] > > > Base units really don't make that much of a difference. Consider it a > > historical aberration. > > > > In angle, the smaller divisions are less used (or known), yet degrees > > > are universal and seem to be understood by almost everybody. > > > I seem to use radians a lot more when doing calculations. And I'm sure > > many surveyors may prefer gradients to degrees. > > > > The English units of measure are part of the English language, and > > > indeed, of every European language once, even French. Most > > > particularly, it is true of Latin, the language of our common > > > heritage, and where we got our traditional units from. > > > You are so insensitive, you know that? What about the Japanese and their > > koku of rice? Or their ri? The Chinese li? The ancient cubit? You're > > being so Amerocentric. And what about the Anglo-Saxons' units, before > > the Romans imposed their unit system onto them? > > > [1] I know, I know, I shouldn't be so biased towards the > > economically-advantaged nations, but unfortunately my media sources > > provide me with too little information on third world countries. > > > -- > > Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not > > tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth > > Whenever I need to do any calculations involving physical quantities, > I first convert to metric, do the calculation and then convert back to > english. This avoids bizarro conversions such as feet in a mile or > psi to something else. > I even had one professor who worked in a system where all independent > constants (c, q, permativitty of free space, etc) were all equal to > 1. Using SI, you could then simply insert the correct units at the > end knowing it was correct with no conversions. > One of the few truly arbitrary things in metric system is temp using > Celsius but true SI uses Kelvin whose units of temp happens to be the > same size as Celsius degrees. > In SI units, I can readily calculate things as varied as time to fall > to earth for an object, period of a pendulum, amount of fuel needed to > change an orbit, ALL IN MY HEAD. In english units, no way. > Let me see, 12 inches in a foot, 5280 feet/mile, a cubic foot of water > weighs ...........I dunno. However, a cubic meter of water is > obviously 1000 Kg. One does need to remember a few basic constants > such as c, q, mass of electron and proton, Avagodros number, etc. > However, in english units you would not only have to remember such > constants but also conversions between various units. Ummmmmm, how do > you go from BTU/sec to hp? How is hp related to watts? > Calculating pressure, you say nobody does this, WRONG. I used to be > an oilfield engineer, the only way to deal with english units was to > memorize bizzaro conversions such as: > downhole pressure =.052*mudweight(pounds/gallon)*depth in feet. > Somewhere in that .052 number is the constant g (what is g in english > units, something like 32 ft/sec/sec) but this formula gives no > physical sense of what is happening. In SI, one simply uses the > formula Pressure =rho*g*h where rho(density) is in kg/m3 and g is > about 10 m/sec2 and h is in meters. This formula in SI would be > useful on the moon where g is 1/6 of that on earth whereas I have no > immediate idea how to modify the english one (probably divide .052 by > 6 I think just to keep units correct). > Quite frankly, the cumbersome english units cause so much confusion > that we would have far better of understanding of physical concepts if > we simply used SI in everything (except temp where we would use > Celsius).- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - ToYa All Metric 10 USA system 0 We make pennies. cameras,lenses etc all using metric. I don't like stones for weight. Foot for length. I go with meters and grams TreBert
From: Joshua Cranmer on 3 Feb 2010 09:38 On 02/03/2010 08:59 AM, Bart Goddard wrote: > Joshua Cranmer<Pidgeot18(a)verizon.invalid> wrote in news:hkbrpu$e0j$1(a)news- > int2.gatech.edu: > >> Woah. You're basically saying here "the U.S. uses Imperial units, so the >> rest of the world should too. > > Yet isn't that the argument the other side gives as well? > "We all use Metric, so the US should too, and by the way, > if they don't, then they're just stoopid." If one agrees that the systems of units should be standardized, there are two plausible choices: everyone goes to Imperial or everyone goes to SI. From a standpoint of pure economics, the latter makes much more sense. I'm perfectly fine with people advocating the status quo; it's the fact that Mr. Usher is advocating switching the rest of the world that causes me to take issue. -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
From: Marshall on 3 Feb 2010 11:00 On Feb 3, 6:04 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: > Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> writes: > > On Feb 2, 6:47 pm, "Heidi Graw" <hg...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > >> Btw, my own husband prefers the metric system. > > > And why should his opinion matter, if he hasn't looked at it from the > > perspective I have? > > Should his opinion matter if he has looked at it from the perspective > you have? Why? It isn't particularly logically valid, but as a rule of thumb, I would propose that the tendency to consider things from the same perspective as Andrew Usher would be good grounds for ignoring someone. Marshall
From: Marshall on 3 Feb 2010 11:06
On Feb 2, 10:01 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > I really shouldn't have to respond to ridiculous stuuf like this! The rest of the world just called to say the feeling is mutual. Marshall |