|
On December 10 2011 07:38 XsebT wrote:
The Light Year is already a universal measure of distance. I don't get why you guys are trying to reinvent it.
Every planet in the universe has a year of a different length (and the length of a year isn't even constant). The ratio between distance traveled by light and time is universal, but a meter and a second are not.
Time is only strictly metric if you express everything as a ten power of a second. That works great below a second, but using a 86.4 kiloseconds instead of a day would be odd.
|
On December 10 2011 07:59 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 07:55 isleyofthenorth wrote: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.
well you might but one or two generations(ok thats probably way too much even, much less than that) later everyone has forgotten about it. its not really a loss, like some laguages only have like hundreds of native speakers left. and people are putting effort into retaining them by having some schools teach them etc, which i think is good. if you let one way of measuring die over the course of say 40 and only teach the other one in schools who would care, i sure as hell wouldnt give a fuck. you know they changed the currency here in austria 2002 from schilling to euro and everyone forgot about it in a few years(even though it was akward at first to calculate x14 all the time)
|
On December 10 2011 08:04 Mr Showtime wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 08:01 VoirDire 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). 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.
The inch was created as an independent unit, but since 1959 it's redefined as exactly 0.0254 meters.
|
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
Just to start off with the temperture measurement... Out celsius scale translates directly to the kelvin scale (on the kelvin scale, 0 is just that... absolute zero, or - 273.15 celsius) and is just very logical for basic human needs aswell. Water freezes at 0 degrees celsius and vaporizes at 100 degrees celsius.
I feel like the reason for 10 as the most logical has already been explained in this topic, but to sum up a little:
Basis of our hindu-arabic numerals 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 <- 10 digits.
It's the basis of our number system... 0, 10, 100, 1.000, 1.000.000, 1.000.000.000... etc.
We have 10 fingers.
Top 10... 10 most wanted. 10 best artists. Generally very satisfying number.
|
On December 10 2011 08:09 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 08:07 VoirDire wrote: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.
I don't think you fully appreciate how much time conversion takes. I'd imagine that most "drawings" are digitally stored nowadays and the metric conversion can be fully automated.
|
On December 10 2011 08:15 XsebT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 08:04 Fontong wrote: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:
[quote]
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 Just to start off with the temperture measurement... Out celsius scale translates directly to the kelvin scale (on the kelvin scale, 0 is just that... absolute zero, or - 273.15 celsius) and is just very logical for basic human needs aswell. Water freezes at 0 degrees celsius and vaporizes at 100 degrees celsius. I feel like the reason for 10 as the most logical has already been explained in this topic, but to sum up a little: Basis of our hindu-arabic numerals 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 <- 10 digits. It's the basis of our number system... 0, 10, 100, 1.000, 1.000.000, 1.000.000.000... etc. We have 10 fingers. Top 10... 10 most wanted. 10 best artists. Generally very satisfying number.
Well,I know that 10 makes sense to modern humans because we have grown up in a culture based upon 10. I was think more in the sense of "I we could switch everything over to base 12, would it be better in general?". Your explanation is pretty much circular in that you argue that base 10 is better because we already use base 10.
|
On December 10 2011 08:10 gyth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 07:38 XsebT wrote:
The Light Year is already a universal measure of distance. I don't get why you guys are trying to reinvent it. Every planet in the universe has a year of a different length (and the length of a year isn't even constant). The ratio between distance traveled by light and time is universal, but a meter and a second are not. Time is only strictly metric if you express everything as a ten power of a second. That works great below a second, but using a 86.4 kiloseconds instead of a day would be odd.
I shouldn't have said universal I guess... I meant just for us earthlings. Of course a year on Jupiter isn't the same as on earth.
Your last point is complete nonsense. It's just a matter of rewriting it... 86.4 kilo(kilo=1000)seconds = 1 day on earth. Minutes and hours didn't disappear all of a sudden.
|
On December 10 2011 08:20 Fontong wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 08:15 XsebT wrote:On December 10 2011 08:04 Fontong wrote: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:
[quote]
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 Just to start off with the temperture measurement... Out celsius scale translates directly to the kelvin scale (on the kelvin scale, 0 is just that... absolute zero, or - 273.15 celsius) and is just very logical for basic human needs aswell. Water freezes at 0 degrees celsius and vaporizes at 100 degrees celsius. I feel like the reason for 10 as the most logical has already been explained in this topic, but to sum up a little: Basis of our hindu-arabic numerals 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 <- 10 digits. It's the basis of our number system... 0, 10, 100, 1.000, 1.000.000, 1.000.000.000... etc. We have 10 fingers. Top 10... 10 most wanted. 10 best artists. Generally very satisfying number. Well,I know that 10 makes sense to modern humans because we have grown up in a culture based upon 10. I was think more in the sense of "I we could switch everything over to base 12, would it be better in general?". Your explanation is pretty much circular in that you argue that base 10 is better because we already use base 10.
Yes, these arguments are very circular, but that's what makes it so logical. There's a reason why engineers learn metric system even in USA. There's a reason why scientists use kelvin even in USA.
|
On December 10 2011 08:25 XsebT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 08:20 Fontong wrote:On December 10 2011 08:15 XsebT wrote:On December 10 2011 08:04 Fontong wrote: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:
[quote]
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 Just to start off with the temperture measurement... Out celsius scale translates directly to the kelvin scale (on the kelvin scale, 0 is just that... absolute zero, or - 273.15 celsius) and is just very logical for basic human needs aswell. Water freezes at 0 degrees celsius and vaporizes at 100 degrees celsius. I feel like the reason for 10 as the most logical has already been explained in this topic, but to sum up a little: Basis of our hindu-arabic numerals 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 <- 10 digits. It's the basis of our number system... 0, 10, 100, 1.000, 1.000.000, 1.000.000.000... etc. We have 10 fingers. Top 10... 10 most wanted. 10 best artists. Generally very satisfying number. Well,I know that 10 makes sense to modern humans because we have grown up in a culture based upon 10. I was think more in the sense of "I we could switch everything over to base 12, would it be better in general?". Your explanation is pretty much circular in that you argue that base 10 is better because we already use base 10. Yes, these arguments are very circular, but that's what makes it so logical. There's a reason why engineers learn metric system even in USA. There's a reason why scientists use kelvin even in USA.
Ok, I think we are talking about different things now.
|
Its strange in the UK how we use all metric apart from when it comes to milk and lager, with it being in pints, and when it comes to weight as we do it stone and pounds and not kilograms. I still use kilograms myself though haha.
|
in the US we use "standard" (imperial) because this is what we're taught, and this is what's used in everyday life. metric is much easier but imperial does allow you to evenly divide by 2, 3, 4, and 6 which can occasionally be useful
|
On December 10 2011 08:26 Fontong wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 08:25 XsebT wrote:On December 10 2011 08:20 Fontong wrote:On December 10 2011 08:15 XsebT wrote:On December 10 2011 08:04 Fontong wrote: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:
[quote]
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 Just to start off with the temperture measurement... Out celsius scale translates directly to the kelvin scale (on the kelvin scale, 0 is just that... absolute zero, or - 273.15 celsius) and is just very logical for basic human needs aswell. Water freezes at 0 degrees celsius and vaporizes at 100 degrees celsius. I feel like the reason for 10 as the most logical has already been explained in this topic, but to sum up a little: Basis of our hindu-arabic numerals 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 <- 10 digits. It's the basis of our number system... 0, 10, 100, 1.000, 1.000.000, 1.000.000.000... etc. We have 10 fingers. Top 10... 10 most wanted. 10 best artists. Generally very satisfying number. Well,I know that 10 makes sense to modern humans because we have grown up in a culture based upon 10. I was think more in the sense of "I we could switch everything over to base 12, would it be better in general?". Your explanation is pretty much circular in that you argue that base 10 is better because we already use base 10. Yes, these arguments are very circular, but that's what makes it so logical. There's a reason why engineers learn metric system even in USA. There's a reason why scientists use kelvin even in USA. Ok, I think we are talking about different things now.
Ok, I think you just gave up. 
Give me one reason I should start measuring lengths by the size of somebody's foot and tempertures by the heat of my body (unless I'm ill).
Btw, I'm not discussing this like a language barrier. I'm only talking about what makes more sense for someone who doesn't know either.
|
Both because my scumbag engineering profs like to give you units in English Units, but all of the standard tables, etc are in SI
-________________________________________________-
Seriously, it just makes homework that much more of a pain when it really doesn't have to be.
+ Show Spoiler +Finals week makes a man want to just say fuck it all!
|
Since when Standard is Inches, feet, yards ( Maybe in USA ? )
|
On December 10 2011 08:32 XsebT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 08:26 Fontong wrote:On December 10 2011 08:25 XsebT wrote:On December 10 2011 08:20 Fontong wrote:On December 10 2011 08:15 XsebT wrote:On December 10 2011 08:04 Fontong wrote: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:
[quote]
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 Just to start off with the temperture measurement... Out celsius scale translates directly to the kelvin scale (on the kelvin scale, 0 is just that... absolute zero, or - 273.15 celsius) and is just very logical for basic human needs aswell. Water freezes at 0 degrees celsius and vaporizes at 100 degrees celsius. I feel like the reason for 10 as the most logical has already been explained in this topic, but to sum up a little: Basis of our hindu-arabic numerals 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 <- 10 digits. It's the basis of our number system... 0, 10, 100, 1.000, 1.000.000, 1.000.000.000... etc. We have 10 fingers. Top 10... 10 most wanted. 10 best artists. Generally very satisfying number. Well,I know that 10 makes sense to modern humans because we have grown up in a culture based upon 10. I was think more in the sense of "I we could switch everything over to base 12, would it be better in general?". Your explanation is pretty much circular in that you argue that base 10 is better because we already use base 10. Yes, these arguments are very circular, but that's what makes it so logical. There's a reason why engineers learn metric system even in USA. There's a reason why scientists use kelvin even in USA. Ok, I think we are talking about different things now. Ok, I think you just gave up. Give me one reason I should start measuring lengths by the size of somebody's foot and tempertures by the heat of my body (unless I'm ill). Btw, I'm not discussion this like a language barrier. I'm only talking about what makes more sense for someone who doesn't know either.
You are really just not talking about the same thing as me lol
All I was discussing was the validity of the base 12 system, without even relating it to units of measurement. For someone who was completely cut off from any sort of culture, the base 12 and base 10 systems of counting should be equally valid.
|
imperial units stress me! from somebody brought up with the metric system, when you're tossed an engineering problem with imperial units in it, it's sooo confusing. i myself frequently use feet, inches, pounds but when you're trying to calculate stuff i always get confused with pound force, pound mass, slugs and all that other sketchiness.
aren't there only 3 countries in the world that still use imperial (including US and uganda)? unfortunately switching to metric would probably cost the country a fair bit.. i'm thinking machining and the military.
|
On December 10 2011 08:20 Fontong wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 08:15 XsebT wrote:On December 10 2011 08:04 Fontong wrote: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:
[quote]
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 Just to start off with the temperture measurement... Out celsius scale translates directly to the kelvin scale (on the kelvin scale, 0 is just that... absolute zero, or - 273.15 celsius) and is just very logical for basic human needs aswell. Water freezes at 0 degrees celsius and vaporizes at 100 degrees celsius. I feel like the reason for 10 as the most logical has already been explained in this topic, but to sum up a little: Basis of our hindu-arabic numerals 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 <- 10 digits. It's the basis of our number system... 0, 10, 100, 1.000, 1.000.000, 1.000.000.000... etc. We have 10 fingers. Top 10... 10 most wanted. 10 best artists. Generally very satisfying number. Well,I know that 10 makes sense to modern humans because we have grown up in a culture based upon 10. I was think more in the sense of "I we could switch everything over to base 12, would it be better in general?". Your explanation is pretty much circular in that you argue that base 10 is better because we already use base 10.
We should clearly be using a base 8.53973422 system with units e incremented in radians.
|
On December 10 2011 08:42 Fontong wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 08:32 XsebT wrote:On December 10 2011 08:26 Fontong wrote:On December 10 2011 08:25 XsebT wrote:On December 10 2011 08:20 Fontong wrote:On December 10 2011 08:15 XsebT wrote:On December 10 2011 08:04 Fontong wrote: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:
[quote]
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 Just to start off with the temperture measurement... Out celsius scale translates directly to the kelvin scale (on the kelvin scale, 0 is just that... absolute zero, or - 273.15 celsius) and is just very logical for basic human needs aswell. Water freezes at 0 degrees celsius and vaporizes at 100 degrees celsius. I feel like the reason for 10 as the most logical has already been explained in this topic, but to sum up a little: Basis of our hindu-arabic numerals 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 <- 10 digits. It's the basis of our number system... 0, 10, 100, 1.000, 1.000.000, 1.000.000.000... etc. We have 10 fingers. Top 10... 10 most wanted. 10 best artists. Generally very satisfying number. Well,I know that 10 makes sense to modern humans because we have grown up in a culture based upon 10. I was think more in the sense of "I we could switch everything over to base 12, would it be better in general?". Your explanation is pretty much circular in that you argue that base 10 is better because we already use base 10. Yes, these arguments are very circular, but that's what makes it so logical. There's a reason why engineers learn metric system even in USA. There's a reason why scientists use kelvin even in USA. Ok, I think we are talking about different things now. Ok, I think you just gave up. Give me one reason I should start measuring lengths by the size of somebody's foot and tempertures by the heat of my body (unless I'm ill). Btw, I'm not discussion this like a language barrier. I'm only talking about what makes more sense for someone who doesn't know either. You are really just not talking about the same thing as me lol All I was discussing was the validity of the base 12 system, without even relating it to units of measurement. For someone who was completely cut off from any sort of culture, the base 12 and base 10 systems of counting should be equally valid.
This is when you argue why the size of somebody's foot and cutting it into 12 parts is a valid measurement. Go right ahead.
|
If you think about it, writing numbers in base 10 is completely arbitrary as well. Some experts think it's simply because we have 10 fingers, and otherwise 5032 could just as well have been written (11650)8 or 13A8 (hexadecimal notation). I.e., it doesn't matter wtf you're using, they are the exact same thing only different scales and words. It's annoying that the metric system and SI units in general aren't universal, but switching would be such a huge pain in the ass for the us of a that it probably won't happen.
Also I buy wood in terms of thumb etc, but 33/50cl cans of soda.
edit: should have read the thread before posting
|
On December 10 2011 08:45 scorch- wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 08:20 Fontong wrote:On December 10 2011 08:15 XsebT wrote:On December 10 2011 08:04 Fontong wrote: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:
[quote]
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 Just to start off with the temperture measurement... Out celsius scale translates directly to the kelvin scale (on the kelvin scale, 0 is just that... absolute zero, or - 273.15 celsius) and is just very logical for basic human needs aswell. Water freezes at 0 degrees celsius and vaporizes at 100 degrees celsius. I feel like the reason for 10 as the most logical has already been explained in this topic, but to sum up a little: Basis of our hindu-arabic numerals 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 <- 10 digits. It's the basis of our number system... 0, 10, 100, 1.000, 1.000.000, 1.000.000.000... etc. We have 10 fingers. Top 10... 10 most wanted. 10 best artists. Generally very satisfying number. Well,I know that 10 makes sense to modern humans because we have grown up in a culture based upon 10. I was think more in the sense of "I we could switch everything over to base 12, would it be better in general?". Your explanation is pretty much circular in that you argue that base 10 is better because we already use base 10. We should clearly be using a base 8.53973422 system with units e incremented in radians.
That would be irrational as fuck, not going to lie
On December 10 2011 08:46 XsebT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2011 08:42 Fontong wrote:On December 10 2011 08:32 XsebT wrote:On December 10 2011 08:26 Fontong wrote:On December 10 2011 08:25 XsebT wrote:On December 10 2011 08:20 Fontong wrote:On December 10 2011 08:15 XsebT wrote:On December 10 2011 08:04 Fontong wrote:On December 10 2011 07:58 XsebT wrote:On December 10 2011 07:54 ZasZ. wrote:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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 Just to start off with the temperture measurement... Out celsius scale translates directly to the kelvin scale (on the kelvin scale, 0 is just that... absolute zero, or - 273.15 celsius) and is just very logical for basic human needs aswell. Water freezes at 0 degrees celsius and vaporizes at 100 degrees celsius. I feel like the reason for 10 as the most logical has already been explained in this topic, but to sum up a little: Basis of our hindu-arabic numerals 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 <- 10 digits. It's the basis of our number system... 0, 10, 100, 1.000, 1.000.000, 1.000.000.000... etc. We have 10 fingers. Top 10... 10 most wanted. 10 best artists. Generally very satisfying number. Well,I know that 10 makes sense to modern humans because we have grown up in a culture based upon 10. I was think more in the sense of "I we could switch everything over to base 12, would it be better in general?". Your explanation is pretty much circular in that you argue that base 10 is better because we already use base 10. Yes, these arguments are very circular, but that's what makes it so logical. There's a reason why engineers learn metric system even in USA. There's a reason why scientists use kelvin even in USA. Ok, I think we are talking about different things now. Ok, I think you just gave up. Give me one reason I should start measuring lengths by the size of somebody's foot and tempertures by the heat of my body (unless I'm ill). Btw, I'm not discussion this like a language barrier. I'm only talking about what makes more sense for someone who doesn't know either. You are really just not talking about the same thing as me lol All I was discussing was the validity of the base 12 system, without even relating it to units of measurement. For someone who was completely cut off from any sort of culture, the base 12 and base 10 systems of counting should be equally valid. This is when you argue why the size of somebody's foot and cutting it into 12 parts is a valid measurement. Go right ahead.
I have no idea what you are talking about!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
