Do you use Imperial or Metric? - Page 33

CptCutter

United Kingdom370 Posts

December 10 2011 00:18 GMT

#641

On December 09 2011 13:35 Nothingtosay wrote:
Standard because the US is nonsensical and refuses to adapt.

Edit: Also people say half a meter, half a kilometer, etc, all the time.

YES, gogo date format modification!

Impervious

Canada4216 Posts

December 10 2011 00:20 GMT

#642

Well, if we're talking about NASA here.....

http://www.astrodigital.org/space/stshorse.html

XsebT

Denmark2980 Posts

December 10 2011 00:21 GMT

#643

On December 10 2011 09:17 Fontong wrote:

Show nested quote +

On December 10 2011 08:50 XsebT wrote:

On December 10 2011 08:47 Fontong wrote:

On December 10 2011 08:45 scorch- 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.

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:

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:
[quote]
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.

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!

1 foot = 12 inches = 1/3 yard = the size of a "standard" foot of a human being.

The imperial system is not even in base 12. Im only discussing base 10 and base 12 for counting. They are both independent from the metric and imperial systems.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but are you trying to say that the metric system doesn't have anything to do with base 10?

Okiesmokie

Canada379 Posts

December 10 2011 00:22 GMT

#644

On December 09 2011 13:32 Keyboard Warrior wrote:
2. Standard units are more practical and convenient. No one goes to the grocery to buy 400ml drink, instead, they buy it in 12 ounces.

This is actually incorrect. In canada all bottled/canned drinks are displayed in ml, not ounces. I don't really see how "12 ounces" is more practical than a nice round number like 400ml.

Setev

Malaysia390 Posts

December 10 2011 00:22 GMT

#645

On December 09 2011 13:44 Medrea wrote:

Show nested quote +

Its joke, ok?

Hmm, not funny. Haha. Anyway, metric FTW! But honestly, if I had grown up educated in the standard system, I might have voted for standard instead of metric.

However, IMHO I think that the world should convert to metric. Its more precise and easier to compute than standard. The only reason that standard is still in use is because there are plenty of people in the US who are so used to the standard system that to change to metric will incur greater marginal cost (hassle) while receiving proportionately lesser marginal benefit to him/herself.

This reminds me of the Bloomberg Terminal software. But that topic will be for another thread on another day.

[KGS]Slacker

Denmark82 Posts

December 10 2011 00:23 GMT

#646

I almost spit half my 16 ounce coffee on the screen when i read the 2nd "advantage" to the Imperial system. buying 333mL cans or 500mL bottles of soda is just as natural as 12 or 16 ounce drinks.

I'm from Denmark but I'm currently in the US on exchange. I hate trying to compare prices at the grocery store here, because although most prices for fx a soda are also listed as price/volume, some times they'll list the price/pint and other times price/ounce, making it impossible (for me) to compare...

Thank god for my unit conversion app. Does anyone know a website that lists all the relations in the Imperial system? I'd like to get them down.

Kanaz

Denmark658 Posts

December 10 2011 00:28 GMT

#647

So i got a question for those who use standard.
When we talk about data traffic, do you still use Mega, Kilo etc. for bytes?
And do you use it, in other scenarios?

gyth

657 Posts

December 10 2011 00:33 GMT

#648

Yes, the day, month, and year have been globally recognized ideas which everyone can agree on easily. Before metric, every country could have conceivably had a different value for the foot (which changed with every new ruler).

Every time someone uses "tonne" to represent 1000kg the platinum block undergoes alpha decay...

gyth

657 Posts

December 10 2011 00:42 GMT

#649

On December 10 2011 09:28 Kanaz wrote:
So i got a question for those who use standard.
When we talk about data traffic, do you still use Mega, Kilo etc. for bytes?

MiB - Mebibyte is preferred if you are trying to be clear, 1024x1024 bytes
MB - Megabyte could be 1000x1000, 1024x1024, or even 1000x1024 (1.44MB floppy)

Mastermind

Canada7096 Posts

December 10 2011 00:43 GMT

#650

The OP is clearly ignorant about things outside the USA. I buy drinks in millilitres all the time. That is the only way to buy liquid hear in Canada. And it is absolutely normal to say half a kilometer or half a meter. There is literally no advantage to using the imperial system(not 'standard' as the silly OP calls it), except that it is ingrained into society.

Gorguts

Canada254 Posts

December 10 2011 00:45 GMT

#651

ROFL @ OP calling imperial "Standard"

XsebT

Denmark2980 Posts

December 10 2011 00:49 GMT

#652

Binary now? really?

semantics

10040 Posts

December 10 2011 00:51 GMT

#653

On December 10 2011 09:42 gyth wrote:

Show nested quote +

MiB - Mebibyte is preferred if you are trying to be clear, 1024x1024 bytes
MB - Megabyte could be 1000x1000, 1024x1024, or even 1000x1024 (1.44MB floppy)

a byte is also 8 bits, if we ran in a computer world we all be doing base 2 and base 16

On December 10 2011 09:45 Gorguts wrote:
ROFL @ OP calling imperial "Standard"

For US measurements it's not identical to imperial as imperial for the British empire was standardized after the US broke off from it. So calling it standard is nothing wrong as he's from the US thus US standard.

c0rn1

Germany146 Posts

December 10 2011 01:09 GMT

#654

I actually am still wondering that the first thing the US would do after gaining independence wasn't to dump the imperial system into the trash can. Slaves were controlled in inches and feet while the free mind in modern science used the metric system from the start of.

As a physicist I have to say that I'd be screwed or rather seriously bothered by having to use miles/feet/inches in experiments or calculations.
As an example just take the meter:
it is defined exactly by the speed of light. 1m = the distance light travels in 1/299,792,458s

By that meter I can derive the volume. 1 liter is the volume of a cube which is designed by the distance light travels in 1/299,7924,580s in an orthonormal coordinate system R³ along the x,y,z axis starting from 0. (0.1m * 0.1m * 0.1m).

I can even easily derive with a small uncertainty (negligible in day-to-day use) the weight of 1 kg from this. 1l of distilled water @ 4° C ~ 0.999972 kg. So I have the uncertainty down to the 5th position.

So if we start with the imperial system and take volume in feet for example. Which foot do we take?
yours? mine? How is the foot defined? It is defined nowadays via the metric system. Since 1954 the yard is defined as 0.9144m and so the foot is 1/3 of that yard = 30.48cm. So why even bother to take a system which is defined on a different system nowadays when that one is more accurate and easier to handle (once you caught onto it)?

Reptilia

Chile913 Posts

December 10 2011 01:12 GMT

#655

base 12 is much better than 10 because its divisible by 2, 3, 4, 6 instead of 2, 5

ilikeredheads

Canada1995 Posts

December 10 2011 01:13 GMT

#656

Q: How do you describe someone who speak two languages?
A: Bilingual
Q: How about 3 languages?
A: Trilingual
Q: What about only 1 language?
A: American

Metric system is easy to use. It's simple to convert from unit to unit because they are in multiples of 100. Then you have the imperial system where 1 foot = 12 inches, but 12 feet doesn't equal to 1 yard. WTF??

User was warned for this post

teamsolid

Canada3668 Posts

December 10 2011 01:14 GMT

#657

On December 09 2011 13:32 Keyboard Warrior wrote:
Advantages of Standard
1. Standard goes more naturally with fractions - quarter of a pint, half foot, etc. Technically, you don't say half meter but rather 50 centimeters or 500 millimeters.

2. Standard units are more practical and convenient. No one goes to the grocery to buy 400ml drink, instead, they buy it in 12 ounces. No one buys 5 meters of wood, instead, they buy it is 1x1x12, all in feet.

Umm... yea... no.

People say half a meter all the time. And wtf is a 12 ounce drink? It doesn't even make sense to measure drinks by their weight when what you really care about is their volume, since different liquids have different densities. E.g. alcohol has different density from water.

Sadist

United States7328 Posts

December 10 2011 01:22 GMT

#658

Month day year makes far more sense than the little pyramid shows. If you think of it as "day month year" sure that sounds good, but if you think about it that the largest number a month goes up to is 12 its much more logical for month day year. More than half the time the larger number would come second........and the largest number is always last if you use the full year.

Im all for metric in other stuff........but leave month day year alone. We have it best.

ffadicted

United States3545 Posts

December 10 2011 01:22 GMT

#659

Well, since I live in Canada, we measure our height in feet and inches, we drive in kilometers per hour, we weigh a certain amount of pounds, and our thermometers show celsius.....

I didn't understand this when I first moved here, and to this day I still don't lol

Eppa!

Sweden4641 Posts

December 10 2011 01:26 GMT

#660

On December 10 2011 10:09 c0rn1 wrote:
I actually am still wondering that the first thing the US would do after gaining independence wasn't to dump the imperial system into the trash can. Slaves were controlled in inches and feet while the free mind in modern science used the metric system from the start of.

As a physicist I have to say that I'd be screwed or rather seriously bothered by having to use miles/feet/inches in experiments or calculations.
As an example just take the meter:
it is defined exactly by the speed of light. 1m = the distance light travels in 1/299,792,458s

By that meter I can derive the volume. 1 liter is the volume of a cube which is designed by the distance light travels in 1/299,7924,580s in an orthonormal coordinate system R³ along the x,y,z axis starting from 0. (0.1m * 0.1m * 0.1m).

I can even easily derive with a small uncertainty (negligible in day-to-day use) the weight of 1 kg from this. 1l of distilled water @ 4° C ~ 0.999972 kg. So I have the uncertainty down to the 5th position.

So if we start with the imperial system and take volume in feet for example. Which foot do we take?
yours? mine? How is the foot defined? It is defined nowadays via the metric system. Since 1954 the yard is defined as 0.9144m and so the foot is 1/3 of that yard = 30.48cm. So why even bother to take a system which is defined on a different system nowadays when that one is more accurate and easier to handle (once you caught onto it)?

Don't all scientist use SI units?

Prev 1 31 32 33 34 35 85 Next

Please or register to reply.

Do you use Imperial or Metric? - Page 33

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming