The metric system sucks
in [Math]
|
Prev: connecting Luminet-Poincare Dodecahedral Space with AP-Reverse -Concavity for 10% #379 Correcting Math
Next: Cantor's Diagonal?
From: Frogwatch on 2 Feb 2010 20:14 On Feb 2, 7:47 pm, "Heidi Graw" <hg...(a)telus.net> wrote: > >"Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote in message > >news:732f921e-1220-42f9-bca3-a5a821dee69b(a)b10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com.... > > On Feb 2, 2:54 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> I. Introduction > > > Agreed. > > It's the frogs, 1 Napolean penis weighs 1 gram, and has a length > > of 1 centimeter and climax's in 1 second, sounds scientific. > > Base 12 is vital in architecture, I need 16" centres on a 4'x8' > > ply, bingo, 16", that has no solution in a MeTric base 10 system. > > Ken > > .... > > ...and mechanics in Canada use two sets of tools, one for metric > and one for non-metric. Car parts are now made all over the world > and are combined into one vehicle. This means certain parts require > metric tools and others not. It's a massively confusing thing to work > on a globally manufactured vehicle. Btw, my own husband prefers > the metric system. > > Heidi This evening, I did a calculation of the amount of charge necessary to levitate a dust particle on thge moon. Using SI units, I could do all of it in my head because there is then no conversion of pounds of force to anything else or Volts/foot to some other units. The old english units are simply stupid and unnatural confusing so many people that they never like technical subjects. If we went metric, engineering would be so much motre obvious that we would have more American engineering students. The old english system simply promotes stupidity.
From: Andrew Usher on 2 Feb 2010 20:32 On Feb 2, 7:14 pm, Frogwatch <dboh...(a)mindspring.com> wrote: > This evening, I did a calculation of the amount of charge necessary to > levitate a dust particle on thge moon. Using SI units, I could do all > of it in my head because there is then no conversion of pounds of > force to anything else or Volts/foot to some other units. I rather doubt you did, as your 'problem' is not well-defined. Nevertheless, if you could do it, it would be because you have memorised some values - specifically, Newton's and Coulomb's constants - in SI units. If you had the same in English units it would be equally easy. > The old > english units are simply stupid and unnatural confusing so many people > that they never like technical subjects. I doubt you can provide any evidence of this. If people lack the intelligence to understand units of measure, they should not be in technical subjects anyway. > If we went metric, > engineering would be so much motre obvious that we would have more > American engineering students. Sure, that's why American engineering has been declining just as engineering has been going metric. Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? > The old english system simply promotes stupidity. Stupidity is not bothering to think for yourself but instead regurgitating tired metric propaganda. Did you even try to read my essay? Andrew Usher
From: Andrew Usher on 2 Feb 2010 20:41 On Feb 2, 7:06 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: > HEY STOOOPID - tell us how many fluid ounces and how many weight > ounces there are in a cubic mile of water at 39.20 degrees Fahrenheit. Such a problem would never arise, which is why it's ridiculously biased. Also, water is not the only substance in the world, and if metric sets the density of water to 1 (well, almost!), it can't set the density of anything else to a simple number. The problem is not difficult if one has the appropriate conversion factors, which one would in any line of work where this problem might come up. It's no harder than it is in the metric system for any substance other than water, or indeed for water at a more normal temperature. Andrew Usher
From: Andrew Usher on 2 Feb 2010 20:42 On Feb 2, 7:06 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: > HEY STOOOPID - tell us how many fluid ounces and how many weight > ounces there are in a cubic mile of water at 39.20 degrees Fahrenheit. Such a problem would never arise, which is why it's ridiculously biased. Also, water is not the only substance in the world, and if metric sets the density of water to 1 (well, almost!), it can't set the density of anything else to a simple number. The problem is not difficult if one has the appropriate conversion factors, which one would in any line of work where this problem might come up. It's no harder than it is in the metric system for any substance other than water, or indeed for water at a more normal temperature. Andrew Usher
From: Andrew Usher on 2 Feb 2010 20:42
On Feb 2, 7:06 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: > HEY STOOOPID - tell us how many fluid ounces and how many weight > ounces there are in a cubic mile of water at 39.20 degrees Fahrenheit. Such a problem would never arise, which is why it's ridiculously biased. Also, water is not the only substance in the world, and if metric sets the density of water to 1 (well, almost!), it can't set the density of anything else to a simple number. The problem is not difficult if one has the appropriate conversion factors, which one would in any line of work where this problem might come up. It's no harder than it is in the metric system for any substance other than water, or indeed for water at a more normal temperature. Andrew Usher |