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: Paul Ciszek on 5 Feb 2010 15:34 In article <e16514de-b708-4797-a41d-abcc732ed474(a)h2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Andrew Usher <k_over_hbarc(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Feb 4, 3:21�am, nos...(a)nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote: > >> >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. >> >> I had an E&M textbook like that once...everything was fine until one of >> the homework problems ended with having to find the dimensions of a >> solenoid needed to satisfy some condition. �I just couldn't turn the >> ESU's or whatever back into meters and amps. > >And did you then realise just how silly SI is for EM calculations? Um, no. All of my earlier courses delt with electricity and magnetism in SI units and everything made sense. Furthermore, you buy components with values measured in microfarads or millihenries, not dimensionless ESU values or whatever it was that textbook used. I don't even know the names of any English/Imperial units for voltage, electrical charge, magnetic field strength, capacitance, or inductance. -- Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice." Autoreply is disabled |
From: Bart Goddard on 5 Feb 2010 15:35 jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote in news:hkh7r45hcd(a)news3.newsguy.com: > Bob Myers wrote: >> I can't believe this is being seriously discussed in supposedly >> science-oriented newsgroups. > > <snip> > > You are going to have to realize that there exist people who > don't know there are more than one measurement system and > that they are not the same. That isn't what this discussion is about. Rather, it's about the weakness of certain arguments. Metric and English systems have various strengths and weaknesses. "It's antiquated" or "it's hard to calculate density of water in" or "we use it and you should copy us" or "if you spend a zillion dollars now retooling, you'll make it all back in only 1.5 centuries" simply carry no weight. If there's a compelling reason for the US to switch to metric, I have yet to hear it. Presumably, if a compelling reason existed, we would have been so compelled, eh? Afterall, how much have the British really benefitted from Decimation? It's slightly easier to calculate change (which the cash register did for them anyway) but they've lost a certain amount of coolness (and they didn't have that much to begin with.) And for the record, I don't care what system we use. Units and measurements simply aren't that hard. If we switched once per month, most of the population could keep up. I just don't want a bunch of extra work and hassle dumped into my life by dint of the weak and illogical excuses given thus far. B. -- Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
From: Paul Ciszek on 5 Feb 2010 15:38 In article <Xns9D1691D3E34F4goddardbenetscapenet(a)74.209.136.89>, Bart Goddard <goddardbe(a)netscape.net> wrote: >jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote in news:hkh7n14hcd(a)news3.newsguy.com: > > >> And you have to know the load wood will put on your house >> supports. > >Quick, what's the density of wood in metric? What kind of wood? Ironwood can be higher than 1g/cm3, balsa wood doesn't quite get down to 0.1g/cm3. Denisty will vary with growing conditions, then there is the degree of seasoning. -- Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice." Autoreply is disabled |
From: Bob Myers on 5 Feb 2010 18:15 Bart Goddard wrote: > If there's a compelling reason for the US to switch to > metric, I have yet to hear it. So what's wrong with: (1) It's inefficient (and has a higher risk of error) to have to deal with two systems, which we effectively are doing now despite being a supposedly "English system" country. (2) The rest of the world is already using metric, in most places pretty much exclusively. The U.S. has ALREADY "gone metric" in many, many cases. We buy soft drinks in 2-liter bottles, and wine in 750 mL bottles. MANY manufacturers use metric hardware, etc.. Every car I've owned for the past 15 years, at least, has a "km/h" scale on the speedometer, right along with the MPH. We're still using miles on the road signs, and I buy produce and meat in pounds - but outside of those, I can't think of too many places where I don't already have a metric option. I have a full set of wrenches, sockets, etc. in both systems, just because of the fact that I HAVE to deal with both systems (for no good reason). Two of the vehicles in the garage are fully metric, while the other is mostly English. It's a ridiculous situation. Bob M.
From: Matt on 4 Feb 2010 21:49
On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 17:18:26 +0000 (UTC), Paul Ciszek wrote: > >In article <Xns9D15464AACB40goddardbenetscapenet(a)74.209.136.93>, >Bart Goddard <goddardbe(a)netscape.net> wrote: >>nospam(a)nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote in >>news:hke1bi$n19$6(a)reader2.panix.com: >> >>> What is the density of water in pounds per cubic foot? >> >>As usual, the decimaphile offers us a calculation that >>1. is already known and 2. nobody ever does. Against > >If you mean non-technical people, they get through most of their >lives without doing any calculations at all. Engineers, on the >other hand, have to deal with the density of water quite a bit. Things >get submerged in it, containers are built empty and later filled >with it, it can end up standing on the roofs of buildings if you >didn't design them right, etc. I think you ascribe too much apathy about units of measure to non-technical people. They outnumber techies by a large factor. And they have need to calculate for various reasons: cost per unit weight, fuel per unit distance, cost per unit of household energy, etc. None of which are made easier by using metric units. 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. |