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: jmfbahciv on 6 Feb 2010 08:09 Andrew Usher wrote: > 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. > Pounds/sq.in isn't useful? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Feb 2010 08:10 Andrew Usher wrote: > 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. > What do you do? Hop? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Feb 2010 08:12 Andrew Usher wrote: > On Feb 4, 9:20 pm, Mark Borgerson <mborger...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >>> Well, yes, technically. But if you used a weight measured with a scale >>> (any type) the correction does come into account. >> That's not necessarily true either. If you are weighing iron >> cannonballs on a balance scale using iron weights, no correction >> is necessary. The same holds true on a balance scale whenever >> the item and weights are of equal density. If the weights are >> properly calibrated for their mass in vacuo, you will get >> the proper in-vacuo weight of the cannonball. > > Yes, but balances are almost obsolete. When measuring force as modern > scales do, the full correction is needed. Where did you get the notion that balance scales are obsolete? Do you really believe that computers replace them? /BAH
From: J. Clarke on 6 Feb 2010 07:57 Bart Goddard wrote: > "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote in news:hkg54t01bv4 > @news7.newsguy.com: > >>> "Decimalization" isn't the normal word. Just read the >>> newspapers. Indeed, the uproar (much of it comedic) >>> in the UK over decimation (their word) >> >> You do understand, do you not, that they are using "decimation" for >> its humorous effect. Decimation, since you seem unfamiliar with it > > Oh sweet Jesus. I swear snails can fly over some people's heads. Hey, you're the one trying to tell us that it's the correct term for something else rather than humorous application of an incorrect term.
From: J. Clarke on 6 Feb 2010 07:58
Bart Goddard wrote: > 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. At this point, if it meant an end to inane discussions such at this one it would be worthwhile. > 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. |