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: Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. on 9 Feb 2010 05:10 On Feb 8, 6:01 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote: > "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_bender_1...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:0d4ee18a-d51d-4367-9970-c2664f1f15cd(a)k6g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 8, 6:03 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 8, 5:57 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote: > > > > =============================================== > > > I suspect the little red schoolhouses of the colonial backwoods > > > confused the hundredweight (cwt) with a 100 lbs and by multiplying > > > that by 20 arrived at the short ton. > > > The tun is a large barrel, of course. > > >http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1005/1428697981_1cfdd49674.jpg > > >http://www.picturesofengland.com/img/L/1020188.jpg > > > In fact, a tun of water is about 2100 lb - in between the American and > > British values. > > Yes, that's one of the beauties of the Imperial system: each term can > mean dozens of different things. > ========================================= > Yes, that's ten of the beauties of the metric system: each term can mean > tens, hundreds, thousands or millions of different things. If the beauty of > Helen of Troy could launch a thousand ships then the amount of beauty needed > to launch just one ship must be the milliHelen. > I once knew a girl named Milly-Helen. She looked like a shipwreck. But how does prove that using powers of ten is a bad idea? > > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/object > Date: 14th century > 1 a : something material that may be perceived by the senses <I see an > object in the distance> b : something that when viewed stirs a particular > emotion (as pity) <look to the tragic loading of this bed.the object poisons > sight; let it be hid - Shakespeare> > 2 a : something mental or physical toward which thought, feeling, or action > is directed <an object for study> <the object of my affection> <delicately > carved art objects> b : something physical that is perceived by an > individual and becomes an agent for psychological identification <the mother > is the primary object of the child> > 3 a : the goal or end of an effort or activity : purpose, objective <their > object is to investigate the matter thoroughly> b : a cause for attention or > concern <money is no object> > 4 : a thing that forms an element of or constitutes the subject matter of an > investigation or science > 5 a : a noun or noun equivalent (as a pronoun, gerund, or clause) denoting > the goal or result of the action of a verb b : a noun or noun equivalent in > a prepositional phrase > 6 a : a data structure in object-oriented programming that can contain > functions as well as data, variables, and other data structures b : a > discrete entity (as a window or icon) in computer graphics that can be > manipulated independently of other such entities > > synonyms see intention > Date: 15th century > > transitive verb > : to put forth in opposition or as an objection <objected that the statement > was misleading> > intransitive verb > 1 : to oppose something firmly and usually with words or arguments > 2 : to feel distaste for something > > That's one of the beauties of the English language: each term can mean > dozens of different things. > And your point is that the Imperial system is as ambiguous and complicated as the natural language? And in order to understand the Imperial system you need a PhD degree in linguistics? I thought that, unlike human language, measurement systems should be simple, precise, unambiguous and easy.
From: Andrew Usher on 9 Feb 2010 06:08 On Feb 8, 9:51 am, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > The main problem isn't in dictionaries. It is mostly in the > machine shop. Many of the devices in the machine shop are calibrated > to either the metric or the English system. A good machine shop should > have devices that are calibrated to anything the customer brings in. > Having both metric and English running around doubles the cost of a > machine shop. Doubles?? Most tools can operate in both system, especially after computerisation. Those that do have a fixed dimension need only a part of the machine interchanged. I doubt that it's significant compared to the total cost. > The argument for standardization is not the cost of translation. > The problem is that machine parts are not compatible. This can best be > seen in the automotive industry. Parts made metric are off and can't > be used in English systems, and visa versa. That's not necessarily a units problem, though. It's just that different models of car use different parts. > My person experience is with optical devices and breadboards. > Suppose one makes a breadboard with holes drilled at distances on or > about 1 inch apart. A metric breadboard is drilled at 2.5 inches > apart, while an English system. breadboard is drilled at 2.54... > apart. (obviously you mean cm, not inches) Yes, and I'm sure that that would be only inch-based breadboards here had some metric true believers decided we had to convert and thus add another complication. Andrew Usher
From: Andrew Usher on 9 Feb 2010 06:09 On Feb 8, 10:05 am, "François Grondin" <francois.dot.gron...(a)bpr- cso.dot.com> wrote: But > if I had to live with only one of those systems, I'd go SI right now because > it's simpler. Working in base 10 always been easier. Base 10 is only easier if you count on your fingers! There's no universal reason 10 is better than any other base. Andrew Usher
From: Andrew Usher on 9 Feb 2010 06:11 On Feb 8, 10:12 am, Robin <b.ro...(a)neurol.org> wrote: > China, Europe, Russia, South America, Japan speak metric.. > Where do you want to sell "inched machines" or inched materials? It's not likely that they should care what units their machines are made to; or if they do, it's only because of laws or standards organisations or other bureaucratic nonsense demanding metric. Andrew Usher
From: Andrew Usher on 9 Feb 2010 06:14
On Feb 8, 1:33 pm, nos...(a)nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote: > >> So, how would *you* choose a resistor and a capacitor to produce > >> a desired time constant, without using ohms and Farads? > > >Rigged question. Those off the shelf items are labelled > >in ohms and farads. > > By calling them "barbarous units", he is implying that there is somtehing > better. I am curious as to what that might be. The Gaussian units, of course. It's not the precise values of the units that are special, but the fact that they are physically correct (e.g. in measuring E, B, D, H in the same unit) and SI is not. > >What is 1 atmosphere in pascal? > > Really close to 10^5. Why? Which is only a coincidence, of course. Andrew Usher |