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 5 Feb 2010 21:08 On Feb 5, 2:34 pm, nos...(a)nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote: > >> 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. SI units make sense? I myself never really understood EM until I saw the formulae presented in proper units (see Section IIX of my essay). > Furthermore, you buy components > with values measured in microfarads or millihenries, not dimensionless > ESU values or whatever it was that textbook used. Yeah, but you don't calculate in them, do you? They're only used by convention (Section VII), which actually discredits metric. > I don't even know the > names of any English/Imperial units for voltage, electrical charge, > magnetic field strength, capacitance, or inductance. There aren't any separate ones. But one can make ad hoc units like Volts per inch, electrons per sq. inch, etc., as often would prove convenient. Andrew Usher
From: Andrew Usher on 5 Feb 2010 21:10 On Feb 5, 10:18 am, Mark Borgerson <mborger...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > Not the full circumference, but the length of the 90-degree arc from pole to > > equator. > > Thanks. I missed that factor of four. Nominal 40,000 km circumference > divided by 4 = 10,000km = 1x10^7 m. The actual polar circumference of the Earth is said to be 40,008 km. So the surveys were fairly close, but the accuracy was clearly not good enough for a definition (indeed, even the pendulum would not be good enough). Andrew Usher
From: Andrew Usher on 5 Feb 2010 21:11 On Feb 5, 8:16 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > > True. And anywhere that multiplication or division is required, mixed > > units will not be used as they become too difficult. > > Now learn about dimensional analysis. Everybody has to deal with > mixed units. Mixed units = feet and inches, pounds and ounces, etc. Nothing to do with dimensional analysis. Andrew Usher
From: Andrew Usher on 5 Feb 2010 21:15 On Feb 4, 9:22 pm, Michael Press <rub...(a)pacbell.net> wrote: > The USA gallon aka Queen Anne gallon aka wine gallon > started life as a cylinder 7 inch in diameter by 6 inch high. > So why is it exactly 231 inch^3? Take the approximation pi = 22/7 and you'll get it! Of course, the only gallon that ought to be used anymore is the imperial, ~277.42 cubic inches. > A mile is a thousand double paces. One can still pace out long distances, like the Romans did, and 1,000 paces = 1 mile is pretty close. Andrew Usher
From: Marshall on 5 Feb 2010 21:21
On Feb 5, 5:58 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 5, 5:15 pm, "Bob Myers" <nospample...(a)address.invalid> wrote: > > > (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. > > As I and Bart have said repeatedly, the same could be said of > languages, in some respects more so. Yet the same leftists who want so > badly for us to go metric are pushing linguistic diversity on us. So you are saying that if there is an argument for position X, and an identical argument for position Y, and there exists a person who advocates position X but advocates against position Y, then position X is invalid. Please confirm. Marshall |