|
On December 10 2011 07:33 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 07:32 kingjames01 wrote:On December 10 2011 07:29 Chargelot wrote:On December 10 2011 07:25 kingjames01 wrote:On December 10 2011 07:23 Chargelot wrote:On December 10 2011 07:21 kingjames01 wrote:On December 10 2011 07:13 chenchen wrote:
Why are people trying to argue that metric is more universal?
Metric is infinitely better than "imperial", but it is still relative to many aspects of human existence, as in, an alien civilization would not come up with it.
The second comes from Earth's orbit around the sun. The kilogram is based on a standard blob of metal. The meter is currently defined relative to the second.
Not to mention, humans have ten fingers. Great for base ten math. NO IT DOESN'T. The length scale is defined by the speed of light in a vacuum which is a UNIVERSAL CONSTANT. The time scale is defined by the period of a photon connecting two energy levels in the ground state of a Cesium atom which is a UNIVERSAL CONSTANT. The mass scale is going to be redefined so that it is based on the Planck constant a UNIVERSAL CONSTANT. Stop spouting nonsense, you are contributing to the ignorance present in the world. If you do not know what you are talking about, then just say nothing. And all are relative to the believed universal constants. What do you mean by that? Are you saying that you don't believe them to be universal constants? First off, show me light in a vacuum everywhere in the universe, and I'll call it a universal constant. Til then, lets stick with theoretical universal constants. But that's not at all what I said. The distance light moves in 1/293,xxx,xxx seconds may be constant, in the sense that it doesn't change, but the METER is RELATIVE to THIS DISTANCE, and THE SPEED OF LIGHT. It is a human created bit of information which is, in a sense, completely arbitrary. The speed of light is not a human construct. It would still move the same speed whether we were here to observe it or not. What are you saying??? The speed of light is an assumed constant, but again, that wasn't my point at all.
It isn't assumed. It is measured.
|
On December 10 2011 07:25 kingjames01 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 07:23 Chargelot wrote:On December 10 2011 07:21 kingjames01 wrote:On December 10 2011 07:13 chenchen wrote:
Why are people trying to argue that metric is more universal?
Metric is infinitely better than "imperial", but it is still relative to many aspects of human existence, as in, an alien civilization would not come up with it.
The second comes from Earth's orbit around the sun. The kilogram is based on a standard blob of metal. The meter is currently defined relative to the second.
Not to mention, humans have ten fingers. Great for base ten math. NO IT DOESN'T. The length scale is defined by the speed of light in a vacuum which is a UNIVERSAL CONSTANT. The time scale is defined by the period of a photon connecting two energy levels in the ground state of a Cesium atom which is a UNIVERSAL CONSTANT. The mass scale is going to be redefined so that it is based on the Planck constant a UNIVERSAL CONSTANT. Stop spouting nonsense, you are contributing to the ignorance present in the world. If you do not know what you are talking about, then just say nothing. And all are relative to the believed universal constants. What do you mean by that? Are you saying that you don't believe them to be universal constants?
No, he's saying that unless what you're observing is the period of a photon connecting two energy levels in the ground state of a Cesium atom, it's not a universal constant. If you're observing something that takes the same amount of time as the period of a photon connecting two energy levels in the ground state of a Cesium atom, then it is a second relative to the constant we have established for a second.
Just because we have established extremely precise constants for our most basic units of measurement does not make them not relative. All useful measurements are relative, it's how we derive meaning from them, by comparison.
Because the metric system is easily understood because it is in powers of 10, does not make it any more constant or universal than the english system of units.
Plus, I'm not sure what the discussion is, because they US will never switch. It would cost way too much money and would screw up too many things. It's really no big deal if different people use different systems of measurement as long as it is easy enough to convert between the two. And thanks to Google, it is.
|
On December 10 2011 07:33 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 07:32 kingjames01 wrote:On December 10 2011 07:29 Chargelot wrote:On December 10 2011 07:25 kingjames01 wrote:On December 10 2011 07:23 Chargelot wrote:On December 10 2011 07:21 kingjames01 wrote:On December 10 2011 07:13 chenchen wrote:
Why are people trying to argue that metric is more universal?
Metric is infinitely better than "imperial", but it is still relative to many aspects of human existence, as in, an alien civilization would not come up with it.
The second comes from Earth's orbit around the sun. The kilogram is based on a standard blob of metal. The meter is currently defined relative to the second.
Not to mention, humans have ten fingers. Great for base ten math. NO IT DOESN'T. The length scale is defined by the speed of light in a vacuum which is a UNIVERSAL CONSTANT. The time scale is defined by the period of a photon connecting two energy levels in the ground state of a Cesium atom which is a UNIVERSAL CONSTANT. The mass scale is going to be redefined so that it is based on the Planck constant a UNIVERSAL CONSTANT. Stop spouting nonsense, you are contributing to the ignorance present in the world. If you do not know what you are talking about, then just say nothing. And all are relative to the believed universal constants. What do you mean by that? Are you saying that you don't believe them to be universal constants? First off, show me light in a vacuum everywhere in the universe, and I'll call it a universal constant. Til then, lets stick with theoretical universal constants. But that's not at all what I said. The distance light moves in 1/293,xxx,xxx seconds may be constant, in the sense that it doesn't change, but the METER is RELATIVE to THIS DISTANCE, and THE SPEED OF LIGHT. It is a human created bit of information which is, in a sense, completely arbitrary. The speed of light is not a human construct. It would still move the same speed whether we were here to observe it or not. What are you saying??? The speed of light is an assumed constant, but again, that wasn't my point at all.
It's not an assumed constant - it IS a constant.
|
On December 10 2011 07:35 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 07:25 kingjames01 wrote:On December 10 2011 07:23 Chargelot wrote:On December 10 2011 07:21 kingjames01 wrote:On December 10 2011 07:13 chenchen wrote:
Why are people trying to argue that metric is more universal?
Metric is infinitely better than "imperial", but it is still relative to many aspects of human existence, as in, an alien civilization would not come up with it.
The second comes from Earth's orbit around the sun. The kilogram is based on a standard blob of metal. The meter is currently defined relative to the second.
Not to mention, humans have ten fingers. Great for base ten math. NO IT DOESN'T. The length scale is defined by the speed of light in a vacuum which is a UNIVERSAL CONSTANT. The time scale is defined by the period of a photon connecting two energy levels in the ground state of a Cesium atom which is a UNIVERSAL CONSTANT. The mass scale is going to be redefined so that it is based on the Planck constant a UNIVERSAL CONSTANT. Stop spouting nonsense, you are contributing to the ignorance present in the world. If you do not know what you are talking about, then just say nothing. And all are relative to the believed universal constants. What do you mean by that? Are you saying that you don't believe them to be universal constants? No, he's saying that unless what you're observing is the period of a photon connecting two energy levels in the ground state of a Cesium atom, it's not a universal constant. If you're observing something that takes the same amount of time as the period of a photon connecting two energy levels in the ground state of a Cesium atom, then it is a second relative to the constant we have established for a second. Just because we have established extremely precise constants for our most basic units of measurement does not make them not relative. All useful measurements are relative, it's how we derive meaning from them, by comparison. Because the metric system is easily understood because it is in powers of 10, does not make it any more constant or universal than the english system of units. Plus, I'm not sure what the discussion is, because they US will never switch. It would cost way too much money and would screw up too many things. It's really no big deal if different people use different systems of measurement as long as it is easy enough to convert between the two. And thanks to Google, it is.
I could see the US switching in like 50 years are the world becomes more global and things just start to get marked in metric along with the US standard
|
On December 10 2011 07:35 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 07:25 kingjames01 wrote:On December 10 2011 07:23 Chargelot wrote:On December 10 2011 07:21 kingjames01 wrote:On December 10 2011 07:13 chenchen wrote:
Why are people trying to argue that metric is more universal?
Metric is infinitely better than "imperial", but it is still relative to many aspects of human existence, as in, an alien civilization would not come up with it.
The second comes from Earth's orbit around the sun. The kilogram is based on a standard blob of metal. The meter is currently defined relative to the second.
Not to mention, humans have ten fingers. Great for base ten math. NO IT DOESN'T. The length scale is defined by the speed of light in a vacuum which is a UNIVERSAL CONSTANT. The time scale is defined by the period of a photon connecting two energy levels in the ground state of a Cesium atom which is a UNIVERSAL CONSTANT. The mass scale is going to be redefined so that it is based on the Planck constant a UNIVERSAL CONSTANT. Stop spouting nonsense, you are contributing to the ignorance present in the world. If you do not know what you are talking about, then just say nothing. And all are relative to the believed universal constants. What do you mean by that? Are you saying that you don't believe them to be universal constants? No, he's saying that unless what you're observing is the period of a photon connecting two energy levels in the ground state of a Cesium atom, it's not a universal constant. If you're observing something that takes the same amount of time as the period of a photon connecting two energy levels in the ground state of a Cesium atom, then it is a second relative to the constant we have established for a second. Just because we have established extremely precise constants for our most basic units of measurement does not make them not relative. All useful measurements are relative, it's how we derive meaning from them, by comparison. Because the metric system is easily understood because it is in powers of 10, does not make it any more constant or universal than the english system of units. Plus, I'm not sure what the discussion is, because they US will never switch. It would cost way too much money and would screw up too many things. It's really no big deal if different people use different systems of measurement as long as it is easy enough to convert between the two. And thanks to Google, it is.
That's not even the part that I'm discussing. It doesn't matter if people want to use different scales as long as there's a way to convert. What I'm perplexed about is that he doesn't believe in the scientific method.
|
The Light Year is already a universal measure of distance. I don't get why you guys are trying to reinvent it.
|
Why should I have to use just one? For some reason, certain illicit herbal materials are measured in grams and ounces. I prefer to measure height by feet and inches, but distance by meters. I know my weight in pounds, not kilograms.
It is very situational. I don't just prefer one or the other.
|
On December 10 2011 07:35 kingjames01 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 07:33 Chargelot wrote:On December 10 2011 07:32 kingjames01 wrote:On December 10 2011 07:29 Chargelot wrote:On December 10 2011 07:25 kingjames01 wrote:On December 10 2011 07:23 Chargelot wrote:On December 10 2011 07:21 kingjames01 wrote:On December 10 2011 07:13 chenchen wrote:
Why are people trying to argue that metric is more universal?
Metric is infinitely better than "imperial", but it is still relative to many aspects of human existence, as in, an alien civilization would not come up with it.
The second comes from Earth's orbit around the sun. The kilogram is based on a standard blob of metal. The meter is currently defined relative to the second.
Not to mention, humans have ten fingers. Great for base ten math. NO IT DOESN'T. The length scale is defined by the speed of light in a vacuum which is a UNIVERSAL CONSTANT. The time scale is defined by the period of a photon connecting two energy levels in the ground state of a Cesium atom which is a UNIVERSAL CONSTANT. The mass scale is going to be redefined so that it is based on the Planck constant a UNIVERSAL CONSTANT. Stop spouting nonsense, you are contributing to the ignorance present in the world. If you do not know what you are talking about, then just say nothing. And all are relative to the believed universal constants. What do you mean by that? Are you saying that you don't believe them to be universal constants? First off, show me light in a vacuum everywhere in the universe, and I'll call it a universal constant. Til then, lets stick with theoretical universal constants. But that's not at all what I said. The distance light moves in 1/293,xxx,xxx seconds may be constant, in the sense that it doesn't change, but the METER is RELATIVE to THIS DISTANCE, and THE SPEED OF LIGHT. It is a human created bit of information which is, in a sense, completely arbitrary. The speed of light is not a human construct. It would still move the same speed whether we were here to observe it or not. What are you saying??? The speed of light is an assumed constant, but again, that wasn't my point at all. It isn't assumed. It is measured.
The speed of light in a vacuum is measured. It is assumed constant. The definition of a physical constant is "a physical quantity that is generally believed to be both universal in nature and constant in time".
|
The reason either system is useful is because we are accustomed to them and we have many references to draw from. Take body height for example. The only reason we know what 175 cm or 72 in. person even looks like is because we know what our own height is and we can just add or subtract a few units of measure. Americans can instantly picture what a 5'5" person looks like and non-Americans can instantly picture what a 169cm person looks like. An alien would be able to picture neither instantly.
|
On December 10 2011 07:15 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 07:12 XsebT wrote:On December 10 2011 07:07 Fontong wrote:On December 10 2011 07:05 mordk wrote:On December 10 2011 07:04 Eppa! wrote:On December 10 2011 07:02 mordk wrote:
Metric is so easy to understand, while "Imperial" is a pain in the ass.
I really fail to understand why some countries even bother with imperial system. Same reason our time is not metric? I'm confused He meant that we have been using the system of time for a long while and there is not enough incentive to change, the same reason the USA has not changed to the metric system. I use metric 100% and I hate our time system. I would like it: 365 days/year 10 hours/day 100 minutes/hour 100 seconds/minute etc... 12 is so much more divisible though you can divide 12 by 1 2 3 4 6 and 12 you can only divide 10 by 1 2 5 and 10 12 is sexy compared to your 10
If only we had 12 fingers.
Unfortunately, it's base 10 for us.
|
On December 09 2011 13:43 Keyboard Warrior wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 13:38 Ryndika wrote:I'm from country that doesn't use standard but when I'm drawing I think about things in feets and inches. I have no idea why, though, heheh. I wonder if in USA where you use standard, you also use metric? No one buys 5 meters of wood, instead, they buy it is 1x1x12, all in feet. but that's using 3rd dimension also, right? please tell me where i can buy 0.3x0.3x3.6 meter wood
We don't use 0.3 x 0.3 x 3.6. It's 30 x 30 x 3600. I'm pretty sure all measurements are in millimetres in the construction industry.
|
On December 10 2011 07:40 aethereality wrote:
Why should I have to use just one? For some reason, certain illicit herbal materials are measured in grams and ounces. I prefer to measure height by feet and inches, but distance by meters. I know my weight in pounds, not kilograms.
It is very situational. I don't just prefer one or the other.
I subscribe to this too. As long as I am able to convert between the two scales since they are defined in some logical way and not a randomized factor then I'll use whatever makes sense in that moment.
But... just one thing since there has been talk about universal constants and such... do you really believe that the Ether is a reality?
|
Any European that complains about imperial should think to themselves, how many languages do they speak perhaps that should change :D
We can have both
|
On December 10 2011 07:42 strongandbig wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 07:15 semantics wrote:On December 10 2011 07:12 XsebT wrote:On December 10 2011 07:07 Fontong wrote:On December 10 2011 07:05 mordk wrote:On December 10 2011 07:04 Eppa! wrote:On December 10 2011 07:02 mordk wrote:
Metric is so easy to understand, while "Imperial" is a pain in the ass.
I really fail to understand why some countries even bother with imperial system. Same reason our time is not metric? I'm confused He meant that we have been using the system of time for a long while and there is not enough incentive to change, the same reason the USA has not changed to the metric system. I use metric 100% and I hate our time system. I would like it: 365 days/year 10 hours/day 100 minutes/hour 100 seconds/minute etc... 12 is so much more divisible though you can divide 12 by 1 2 3 4 6 and 12 you can only divide 10 by 1 2 5 and 10 12 is sexy compared to your 10 If only we had 12 fingers. Unfortunately, it's base 10 for us.
That's not the only reason why 10 is superior to 12 for a counting scale.
10 is also the sum of the first four natural numbers.
|
On December 10 2011 07:44 kingjames01 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 07:42 strongandbig wrote:On December 10 2011 07:15 semantics wrote:On December 10 2011 07:12 XsebT wrote:On December 10 2011 07:07 Fontong wrote:On December 10 2011 07:05 mordk wrote:On December 10 2011 07:04 Eppa! wrote:On December 10 2011 07:02 mordk wrote:
Metric is so easy to understand, while "Imperial" is a pain in the ass.
I really fail to understand why some countries even bother with imperial system. Same reason our time is not metric? I'm confused He meant that we have been using the system of time for a long while and there is not enough incentive to change, the same reason the USA has not changed to the metric system. I use metric 100% and I hate our time system. I would like it: 365 days/year 10 hours/day 100 minutes/hour 100 seconds/minute etc... 12 is so much more divisible though you can divide 12 by 1 2 3 4 6 and 12 you can only divide 10 by 1 2 5 and 10 12 is sexy compared to your 10 If only we had 12 fingers. Unfortunately, it's base 10 for us. That's not the only reason why 10 is superior to 12 for a counting scale. 10 is also the sum of the first four natural numbers.
What are the other reasons and how does 10 being the sum of the first 4 natural numbers help?
Just curious
|
On December 10 2011 07:42 semantics wrote:
Any European that complains about imperial should think to themselves, how many languages do they speak perhaps that should change :D
We can have both
It would be far more easier tho if we just used the same measurement. Obviously also true to language, but that is waaaaay harder to change 
|
On December 10 2011 07:42 semantics wrote:
Any European that complains about imperial should think to themselves, how many languages do they speak perhaps that should change :D
We can have both
because one country should speak one language right? 
sry but that just sounded like the classical stereotypical "ignorant american" answer, no offense
E: languages are a part of our diverse cultures
|
Well I'd prefer to use metric, but I tend not to because otherwise people will look at me like I'm some kind of hipster tool.
|
On December 10 2011 07:41 BlackJack wrote:
The reason either system is useful is because we are accustomed to them and we have many references to draw from. Take body height for example. The only reason we know what 175 cm or 72 in. person even looks like is because we know what our own height is and we can just add or subtract a few units of measure. Americans can instantly picture what a 5'5" person looks like and non-Americans can instantly picture what a 169cm person looks like. An alien would be able to picture neither instantly.
How is this actually relevant to the topic? Who cares what aliens might picture someone's height? Ofcourse our scales are going to be human centric until someone finds out where Wookies live.
|
Man! Forums are funny. What has the speed of light got to do with whether you use imperial or metric?
The speed of light can be measured in both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
