|
On December 10 2011 07:46 isleyofthenorth wrote:Show nested quote +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
It actually didn't sound like that at all. He's making a pretty clever analogy. Just like systems of measurement, language is used to communicate something either to yourself (thinking) or other individuals. People who speak more than language are like people who use both systems of measurement in their daily lives (most Americans). I buy a 750mL of liquor, but don't know my height in centimeters. If somebody told you to stop speaking your native tongue because it's "unintuitive" (people say that about English all the time, but they will never tell somebody to stop speaking it) would that sit well with you?
While systems of measurement are a whole lot less culturally relevant and important than languages, the comparison can be made. And it would be a sad world if we all end up speaking the same language, no matter how practical it is.
|
On December 10 2011 07:41 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 07:35 kingjames01 wrote: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".
This is RIDICULOUS! We've been making tests to verify the laws of physics for thousands of years. Almost everything that we have innovated and discovered in the past century has its basis in E&M and Quantum. Both fields independently have provided testable principles rooted on the speed of light in vacuum. If you can think of an experiment that conclusively proves that the speed of light in vacuum is not a constant, then you'll have won a Nobel Prize.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So why don't you show us you are, in fact, correct and that the entire scientific community is just wasting time.
|
On December 10 2011 07:51 MutantGenepool wrote:
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.
The people advocating for some sort of metric system supremacy in this thread would tell you it's because when you measure it in the metric system, it comes out to a "nice" number. I.E. one with lots of zeroes (it's close to 300,000,000 m/s).
|
On December 10 2011 07:52 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 07:46 isleyofthenorth wrote: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 It actually didn't sound like that at all. He's making a pretty clever analogy. Just like systems of measurement, language is used to communicate something either to yourself (thinking) or other individuals. People who speak more than language are like people who use both systems of measurement in their daily lives (most Americans). I buy a 750mL of liquor, but don't know my height in centimeters. If somebody told you to stop speaking your native tongue because it's "unintuitive" (people say that about English all the time, but they will never tell somebody to stop speaking it) would that sit well with you? While systems of measurement are a whole lot less culturally relevant and important than languages, the comparison can be made. And it would be a sad world if we all end up speaking the same language, no matter how practical it is.
yes i agree with your posts, look at my edit. but seriously. if all systems were changed to one tommorrow, who would mourn the loss of say the metric system. no one, correct
|
On December 10 2011 07:54 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 07:51 MutantGenepool wrote:
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. The people advocating for some sort of metric system supremacy in this thread would tell you it's because when you measure it in the metric system, it comes out to a "nice" number. I.E. one with lots of zeroes (it's close to 300,000,000 m/s).
I'm advocating the metric system as the best, but I also call that bullshit. The speed of light has nothing to do with our system. However, we do use the speed of light for measurement of really long distances... The Light Year.
On December 10 2011 07:45 Fontong wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 07:44 kingjames01 wrote: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
It's doesn't.
What I hope he meant to say is that our hindu-arabtic number system has a total of 10 digits: 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9
Since we all use this system now, I'd argue that it's generally easier for us to comprehend 10 as it is the basis of our number system. 12 might be easy to divide, but it's completely illogical in every other aspect.
|
On December 10 2011 07:49 Bleak wrote:Show nested quote +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.
It's relevant because people have been saying the units of measurement for imperial are more arbitrary and less universal. Both systems have rather arbitrary units of measurement that are only relevant because we use them.
|
On December 10 2011 07:55 isleyofthenorth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 07:52 ZasZ. wrote:On December 10 2011 07:46 isleyofthenorth wrote: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 It actually didn't sound like that at all. He's making a pretty clever analogy. Just like systems of measurement, language is used to communicate something either to yourself (thinking) or other individuals. People who speak more than language are like people who use both systems of measurement in their daily lives (most Americans). I buy a 750mL of liquor, but don't know my height in centimeters. If somebody told you to stop speaking your native tongue because it's "unintuitive" (people say that about English all the time, but they will never tell somebody to stop speaking it) would that sit well with you? While systems of measurement are a whole lot less culturally relevant and important than languages, the comparison can be made. And it would be a sad world if we all end up speaking the same language, no matter how practical it is. yes i agree with your posts, look at my edit. but seriously. if all systems were changed to one tommorrow, who would mourn the loss of say the metric system. no one, correct
Depends what you mean by mourn. If we switch the example to the English system of units (people calling it Standard in this thread, I've never heard that before), I sure as shit would mourn it if the U.S. decided to abruptly switch tomorrow. All the work I do is in acres, feet, and inches. I know my height and weight in feet/inches and pounds. If all of a sudden everyone was using the metric system for these things around me, it would be a huge pain in the ass and my work and perception of things around me would suffer. If my friend came up to me and told me she lost 2 kg, I'd have to give her a blank stare because I have no idea if that is a small or large amount of weight.
|
On December 10 2011 07:54 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 07:51 MutantGenepool wrote:
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. The people advocating for some sort of metric system supremacy in this thread would tell you it's because when you measure it in the metric system, it comes out to a "nice" number. I.E. one with lots of zeroes (it's close to 300,000,000 m/s).
Well, the meter is defined by natural constants and the inch is defined as 0.0254 meters.
|
I'm a chemist! I'm slowly trying to convert everyone around me to the metric system by subtly changing thermometers to celsius and things like odometers to kilometers. go me. my friends/family hate it.
|
On December 10 2011 03:28 Stiver wrote:
I think people overestimate how much it would cost to convert. The entire science community is in metric.
No. You just have no clue as to how expensive it would be. There are few changes that the United States could make that would result in more money spent than a change in measurement systems.
|
What many people don't realize, is that there is a huge cost in switching to the metric system. Prettymuch every engineering drawing in the US uses imperial units(and weird variants of that, like mils, which are 1 thousandth of an inch). You could argue for starting to work in metric for everything new, without redoing the old drawings, but then you lose the ability to compare new drawings to old, and look at how parts fit together with converting a ton.
|
On December 10 2011 08:01 VoirDire wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 07:54 ZasZ. wrote:On December 10 2011 07:51 MutantGenepool wrote:
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. The people advocating for some sort of metric system supremacy in this thread would tell you it's because when you measure it in the metric system, it comes out to a "nice" number. I.E. one with lots of zeroes (it's close to 300,000,000 m/s). Well, the meter is defined by natural constants and the inch is defined as 0.0254 meters.
The inch is defined by an inch. It was created as an arbitrary length, and the conversion came later.
|
On December 10 2011 07:58 XsebT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 07:54 ZasZ. wrote:On December 10 2011 07:51 MutantGenepool wrote:
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. The people advocating for some sort of metric system supremacy in this thread would tell you it's because when you measure it in the metric system, it comes out to a "nice" number. I.E. one with lots of zeroes (it's close to 300,000,000 m/s). I'm advocating the metric system as the best, but I also call that bullshit. The speed of light has nothing to do with our system. However, we do use the speed of light for measurement of really long distances... The Light Year. Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 07:45 Fontong wrote:On December 10 2011 07:44 kingjames01 wrote: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 It's doesn't. What I hope he meant to say is that our hindu-arabtic number system has a total of 10 digits: 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 Since we all use this system now, I'd argue that it's generally easier for us to comprehend 10 as it is the basis of our number system. 12 might be easy to divide, but it's completely illogical in every other aspect.
I also don't get why 12 is completely illogical in every other aspect. How would a base 12 system be different from our current base 10 system other than having more factors? The only reason base 12 doesn't make sense to most people is that we already use base 10, making it hard to comprehend. This is quite similar to how it's hard for me to gauge temperature in Celsius because America only uses F
|
On December 10 2011 08:04 Fontong wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 07:58 XsebT wrote:On December 10 2011 07:54 ZasZ. wrote:On December 10 2011 07:51 MutantGenepool wrote:
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. The people advocating for some sort of metric system supremacy in this thread would tell you it's because when you measure it in the metric system, it comes out to a "nice" number. I.E. one with lots of zeroes (it's close to 300,000,000 m/s). I'm advocating the metric system as the best, but I also call that bullshit. The speed of light has nothing to do with our system. However, we do use the speed of light for measurement of really long distances... The Light Year. On December 10 2011 07:45 Fontong wrote:On December 10 2011 07:44 kingjames01 wrote: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:
[quote]
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 It's doesn't. What I hope he meant to say is that our hindu-arabtic number system has a total of 10 digits: 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 Since we all use this system now, I'd argue that it's generally easier for us to comprehend 10 as it is the basis of our number system. 12 might be easy to divide, but it's completely illogical in every other aspect. I also don't get why 12 is completely illogical in every other aspect. How would a base 12 system be different from our current base 10 system other than having more factors? The only reason base 12 doesn't make sense to most people is that we already use base 10, making it hard to comprehend. This is quite similar to how it's hard for me to gauge temperature in Celsius because America only uses F
The argument I have always heard is that we have 10 fingers, making it the most logical choice. We could, I guess, invent elaborate finger symbols for numbers above 10, but there would be no good reason to do so.
|
On December 10 2011 07:58 XsebT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 07:54 ZasZ. wrote:On December 10 2011 07:51 MutantGenepool wrote:
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. The people advocating for some sort of metric system supremacy in this thread would tell you it's because when you measure it in the metric system, it comes out to a "nice" number. I.E. one with lots of zeroes (it's close to 300,000,000 m/s). I'm advocating the metric system as the best, but I also call that bullshit. The speed of light has nothing to do with our system. However, we do use the speed of light for measurement of really long distances... The Light Year. Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 07:45 Fontong wrote:On December 10 2011 07:44 kingjames01 wrote: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 It's doesn't. What I hope he meant to say is that our hindu-arabtic number system has a total of 10 digits: 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 Since we all use this system now, I'd argue that it's generally easier for us to comprehend 10 as it is the basis of our number system. 12 might be easy to divide, but it's completely illogical in every other aspect.
It's not at all illogical, it's just because our number system is base 10 so to think of characters outside of that to represent a number confuses you
On December 09 2011 16:47 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2011 15:37 emythrel wrote:On December 09 2011 15:25 Fontong wrote:On December 09 2011 15:21 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
I don't think ten fingers is the only reason why a base 10 system is easier to understand. A base ten system can only be represented by two numbers in the conversions (1 and 0) right so it would seem much easier to do conversions this way then using base 8 or 12 which has more complex multiplication tables.
For people studying math/science a lot this might seem really trivial but for the general population trust me it isn't. I'm probably fucking up the math terminology but I hope what I said makes sense. It's a lot easier to multiply something by 10 in your head than by 8, there's less numbers involved you just add a zero infact you don't even need to do calculations in your head at all I think he meant that if we actually used a system of counting based in 8 or 12 that would be easier. Of course multiplying things by 10 is easy in a base 10 system. If I used the base 12 system 1234567890ab, all I would have to do to multiply something by 12 would be tack on a 'b' at the end, just like you would do with a zero in base 10. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuodecimalIf you take a look, the multiplication table is not at all awkward. The babylonians used a base 12 system, our clocks run on a base 12 system too. The decimal system is used mainly because its easier to do mathematics using a decimal system and since the entire modern would is founded upon maths done with this system... changing it might be tricky. We could go to using binary, but our brains don't cope as well with it as a computer lol. In the UK, at least when i was a child, we did height and weight in imperial and most other things in metric. However we still measure distance on a road in miles and speed in a car in mph. p.s try representing 7x4 in a base 12 system....... its not so easy as = 28 ... in fact in base 12 it would be 24. That just confuses me more! Why use base 10 when we can use base 8 still have 4 factors and have a smaller table or even base 6 why use base 10 when we can use base 12 have 6 factors and more importantly 1 2 3 4 as all factors base 6 factors | 1 2 3 6 base 8 factors | 1 2 4 8 base 10 factors | 1 2 5 10 base 12 factors | 1 2 3 4 6 12 Also it's easy to represent 7 x 4 in base 12 First 0 = q 1 = w 2 = e 3 = r 4 = t 5 = y 6 = u 7 = i 8 = o 9 = p 10 = [ 11 = ] 7x4 becomes ixt which is = et It's all just a matter of what you were taught.
w e r t y u i o p [ ]
e t u o [ wq we wt wu wo w[
r u p wq wr wu wp eq er eu ep
t o wq wt wo eq et eo rq rt ro
y [ wr wo ew eu e] rt rp te ti
u wq wu eq eu rq ru tq tu yq yu
i we wp et e] ru tw to yr y[ uy
o wt eq eo rt tq to yt uq uo it
p wu er rq rp tu ye uq up iu or
[ wo eu rt te yq y[ uo iu ot pe
] w[ ep ro ti yu uy it or pe [w
edit: XD so many pages back i suppose i shouldn't have watched always sunny before posting
Having more factors cleans up arithmetic, base 60 is the lowest one that will do 1 2 3 4 5 6 but thinking in 60's is quite large base 12 would only mildly increase the multiplication tables. and you can keep positional notation.
|
On December 10 2011 07:53 kingjames01 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 07:41 Chargelot wrote:On December 10 2011 07:35 kingjames01 wrote: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". This is RIDICULOUS! We've been making tests to verify the laws of physics for thousands of years. Almost everything that we have innovated and discovered in the past century has its basis in E&M and Quantum. Both fields independently have provided testable principles rooted on the speed of light in vacuum. If you can think of an experiment that conclusively proves that the speed of light in vacuum is not a constant, then you'll have won a Nobel Prize. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So why don't you show us you are, in fact, correct and that the entire scientific community is just wasting time.
That's nice. Prove to me the speed of light in a vacuum is the same in all locations and throughout all time, past, present, and future, and I will accept that it is a universal constant. Until then, it's a constant that works really well here and now. Calling it a universal law based on how we understand it is far more absurd than saying "hey maybe not".
I like to think that humans don't know everything, and we can't apply all of our knowledge to a universal scale.
|
On December 10 2011 08:03 InvalidID wrote:
What many people don't realize, is that there is a huge cost in switching to the metric system. Prettymuch every engineering drawing in the US uses imperial units. You could argue for starting to work in metric for everything new, without redoing the old drawings, but then you lose the ability to compare new drawings to old, and look at how parts fit together with converting a ton.
There is also a huge cost in all the converting that has to be done when US engineers are working with EU contracts and vice versa.
|
On December 10 2011 08:03 InvalidID wrote:
What many people don't realize, is that there is a huge cost in switching to the metric system. Prettymuch every engineering drawing in the US uses imperial units. You could argue for starting to work in metric for everything new, without redoing the old drawings, but then you lose the ability to compare new drawings to old, and look at how parts fit together with converting a ton.
Ding ding! People saying that the entire science field uses metric are wrong. It's used almost exclusively in schools in the U.S., but at least in engineering (the only field I can speak from experience on) I have never used the metric system since. It's not just people using the english system in their every day lives to talk about their height and weight and food unit prices. There would be real economic and efficiency losses if the country actually decided to officially switch. It's just not worth it.
|
On December 10 2011 08:01 VoirDire wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 07:54 ZasZ. wrote:On December 10 2011 07:51 MutantGenepool wrote:
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. The people advocating for some sort of metric system supremacy in this thread would tell you it's because when you measure it in the metric system, it comes out to a "nice" number. I.E. one with lots of zeroes (it's close to 300,000,000 m/s). Well, the meter is defined by natural constants and the inch is defined as 0.0254 meters.
It's arguable that 'natural constants', such as the distance between poles by which the meter was defined, are no more useful that arbitrary lengths such as the inch. I, for one, don't really care that the inch is arbitrary and the meter was originally defined by the circumference of the earth. This makes no difference for many people, I would imagine. The meter is basically just as arbitrary as the inch, and is only superior because the relationship between units in the metric system is superior
|
On December 10 2011 08:07 VoirDire wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 08:03 InvalidID wrote:
What many people don't realize, is that there is a huge cost in switching to the metric system. Prettymuch every engineering drawing in the US uses imperial units. You could argue for starting to work in metric for everything new, without redoing the old drawings, but then you lose the ability to compare new drawings to old, and look at how parts fit together with converting a ton. There is also a huge cost in all the converting that has to be done when US engineers are working with EU contracts and vice versa.
11 seconds with a calculator <<< millions-billions of dollars, insofar as cost is concerned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
