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: Andrew Usher on 4 Feb 2010 21:09 On Feb 4, 4:26 am, "Mike Dworetsky" <platinum...(a)pants.btinternet.com> wrote: > I don't see any signs lately that the US is going back to the moon, > regardless of units, so at best your comment is an irrelevance. It was meant to illustrate that non-metric units are no obstacle to accomplishing anything. Andrew Usher
From: William Hamblen on 4 Feb 2010 21:15 On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 08:39:37 -0500, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: >Are you also advocating dropping the US money which is based >on decimal? Anyway, american customary units have been defined as ratios of metric units since 1893. The metric system has been legal in the US since 1866. I'm waiting for the weather babe on TV to start giving temperatures in kelvins. "It's going to be a cold 270 today, so bundle up." Bud
From: William Hamblen on 4 Feb 2010 21:22 On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 11:04:42 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >Pardon me, but what do you mean here? How would you get the density of >water in pounds per cubic foot? Weigh on a balance? BTW, a cubic foot of water is about 62.4 pounds. The pound is a unit of mass (2.205 pounds per Kg, roughly). There is a pound force that has the same name but is 4.45 newtons, roughly. Bud
From: Matt on 4 Feb 2010 21:27 On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 10:26:14 -0000, Mike Dworetsky wrote: >Andrew Usher wrote: >> On Feb 3, 5:13 pm, Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeo...(a)verizon.invalid> wrote: >> >>> The Internet was developed by researchers in the U.S. working under >>> the ARPA program to link up the various research universities. Why >>> do you think IANA was originally controlled by the U.S. Department >>> of Defense (and is now run by a company who does it on a contract >>> with the U.S. Department of Commerce). >> >> Yes. And what does it have to do with units? >> >> The Internet, by its nature, doesn't care what units are used. >> Going to the moon was done very largely with English units. >> >> So how is this supposed to be an argument for metric? >> >> Andrew Usher > >I don't know, but all the other space countries and consortia such as ESA >are using metric, and they are highly successful at launching commercial and >scientific satellites. They also speak French, German, Spanish, etc. Units are a means of communication, as is language. Communication can be done well in any language or system of units. A bad workman blames his tools.
From: William Hamblen on 4 Feb 2010 21:36
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 08:56:28 -0500, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: >Paul Ciszek wrote: >> In article <hkbrpu$e0j$1(a)news-int2.gatech.edu>, >> Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18(a)verizon.invalid> wrote: >>> On 02/02/2010 11:53 PM, Andrew Usher wrote: >>> >>>>> How often do you measure stuff in terms of 10^21? >>>> Not often, I suppose. But how do you specify, say, the mass of the >>>> Earth? >>> Why would people use that in everyday usage? >> >> I happen to be reading this thread in sci.geo.geology, FWIW. >> >What system do geologists use? There was an argument in >sci.physics about 12 years ago w.r.t. which system was >preferred in doing physics work. Old physicists used cgs, young physicists use SI. Bud |