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 08:15 Andrew Usher wrote: > On Feb 4, 8:36 pm, William Hamblen <william.hamb...(a)earthlink.net> > wrote: > >>> 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. > > In geological fields, to answer his question, feet and inches were > extensively used to the 1960s. That's one of the things I had in mind. What was used for the chemistry work? What was used in the oil industry? > > And physicists quite often use natural units or no units in theory. > Give an example where physicists use no units. /BAH
From: J. Clarke on 6 Feb 2010 08:00 jmfbahciv wrote: > Antares 531 wrote: >> On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 09:09:55 +1100, Gerry Myerson >> <gerry(a)maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email> wrote: >> >>> In article <hkeig101lnd(a)news3.newsguy.com>, jmfbahciv >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: >>> >>>> I grew up in the US and cannot think in metric terms so I >>>> always have to do a conversion to make guesstimates. >>>> For some strange reason, kilometers seem to take "longer" >>>> to drive than miles when I drove from Buffalo to Port >>>> Huron, Michigan. :-) >>> Probably because of those metric Canadian hours, what with >>> each one being 100 minutes long. >>> >> When are they likely to change over to a metric week of 10 days? >> Then, I guess the month should be replaced with a metric month of >> 100 days and the year extended to a metric decimal multiple of 1000 >> days. >> > when the moon's orbit can be divisible by 10 days. Thoughtless of those silly Frenchmen to not adjust the orbit of the Moon when they were making up their silly system. > > /BAH
From: J. Clarke on 6 Feb 2010 08:01 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. Then you've never done it. That's OK--I knew a PhD aeronautical engineer who worked on the ME-262 who had never heard of it either.
From: Bart Goddard on 6 Feb 2010 08:36 jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote in news:hkjoki21g80(a)news1.newsguy.com: >> If there's a compelling reason for the US to switch to >> metric, I have yet to hear it. > > If you have a business which wants to sell widgets to > people in countries who use metric, you should manufacture > your products using screws and bolts and things which > are metric. > Hypothetically. But note two things: The US doesn't sell widgets, it buys widgets. So your "if-then" is vacuously true. Second, other countries sell stuff to the US all the time with parts that don't fit our official measuring system. Hmmm..... There's still a gap in your philosophy. B. -- Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
From: Bart Goddard on 6 Feb 2010 08:39
"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote in news:hkjp4s1ar1(a)news2.newsguy.com: >> 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. > Right. How could _anyone_ <eyeroll> POSSIBLY <theatrical sigh> disagree with MY point of view. <stomp off, slam the door.> It's just so darn frustrating when you realize you can't justify something that should "obviously" be justifiable. B. -- Cheerfully resisting change since 1959. |