NationStates Jolt Archive

Did you know that the US is one of only three countries which haven't made the metric system official?
Those apparently being the US, Myanmar and Liberia.
Britain is a bit of an outlier too, but at least officially they are going metric.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication

Why?

Which system do you think is the better one to use?

I personally use metres etc, litres etc (but I don't have a problem with talking cubic metres in larger amounts), grams etc, km/h and Newtonmetres, PS (German version of bHP, the difference is minscule).
As far as time is concerned I can use both 12 and 24 hour dials, but I generally use the 24 hour one, ie 7pm is 19:00.

And why don't we metrify the time too? Ten hours a day?

time would be too difclut everone uses time not everone uses mesements

It's not like we don't use it. We use both measurements in our schools. Mainly we use the metric system in our science classes.

I don't really prefer either/or system. I'm competant with both in any case, except when converting from one system to the other.

Really, it's like asking which language is easier to learn. English was easy for me to learn because I'm American, but Japanese would be difficult for me, and vice-versa for a Japanese person. It's an example.

And why don't we metrify the time too? Ten hours a day?

They tried that in France once, but it didn't work. I would say I like metric much better, though.

time would be too difclut everone uses time not everone uses mesements
Riiiiiight.

I might just add a poll....

The imperial system makes not sense whatever.

I know that scientific institutions in the states do use Metric; papers published in biology are all standard. They, at least, have the sense to understand that math is a much better thing in a system of units that is rational.

Does anyone know if highschool and university courses in math and physics use Imperial? Because I simply cannot imagine the unit conversion hell.

They tried that in France once, but it didn't work. I would say I like metric much better, though.
My highschool used metric and imperial time. More because the former principal was a little unstable.

You could have metric time, but you'd have to start ignoring the earth's movement and things. Scientists and the military already use metric in the US if I'm not mistaken. The only thing that stops them from converting fully is cost and people getting whingy about it.

I heart Dimensional Analysis

The only thing that stops them from converting fully is cost and people getting whingy about it.

The irony? All the imperial units are defined in SI units. Go figure!

snip

And why don't we metrify the time too? Ten hours a day?
Now why I am all for metric for other mesurements the pain of converting our entire history (records and such) would be not worth the effort

Once all the old people die and stop desperatly clinging to the system that was beaten into them as children, there may be hope.

I like the metric system, I think the initial switch would be difficult if we did it over night, but maybe we could start sneaking it in and no one would notice when it took over. :cool:

I use the metric system to help my 4 year old learn about place values in her numbers, it is a hands on exercise that we can do with something abstract.

This page seems strangly relivent (sound so turn it on) http://metric.ytmnd.com/

I use metric whenever I am doing pure science (physics, prob-stat, chem etc). Practically I work in construction and Imperial makes much more sense. 12 is divisable by 3 and 4 which for standard subsets of measurement is much more efficient than metrics (which make neater maths otherwise). For example most falt sheetings are in divisions of 4,8, & 12 ft. Which means that structural supports can universally run at 16 inches and you have an even break. If you tried the same thing in meters your subsets would come out in an infinite series resembling a Mandelbrot set. English currency was based upon the same (non-base 10 system) for similar reasons. For hand writen decimal math metric is definately superior. Acres and hectares as well work on a similar scheme because the maths are easier.

I use metric whenever I am doing pure science (physics, prob-stat, chem etc). Practically I work in construction and Imperial makes much more sense. 12 is divisable by 3 and 4 which for standard subsets of measurement is much more efficient than metrics (which make neater maths otherwise). For example most falt sheetings are in divisions of 4,8, & 12 ft. Which means that structural supports can universally run at 16 inches and you have an even break. If you tried the same thing in meters your subsets would come out in an infinite series resembling a Mandelbrot set. English currency was based upon the same (non-base 10 system) for similar reasons. For hand writen decimal math metric is definately superior. Acres and hectares as well work on a similar scheme because the maths are easier.
The English system was based on a Greek system of counting -now- over 4,000 years old.

They did try a new way to measure time using a decimal system, both for day and year; but it's not easy with the earth movements being so variable.

So, the international system settled on the second as the basic unit of time, and hour and year for larger measurements.

The Mayan calendar would have been a much smarter choice, though.

They did try a new way to measure time using a decimal system, both for day and year; but it's not easy with the earth movements being so variable.

So, the international system settled on the second as the basic unit of time, and hour and year for larger measurements.

The Mayan calendar would have been a much smarter choice, though.
It's possible, you just have different lengths of time. Though I really fail to see the point in converting time to metric.

For example most falt sheetings are in divisions of 4,8, & 12 ft. Which means that structural supports can universally run at 16 inches and you have an even break. If you tried the same thing in meters your subsets would come out in an infinite series resembling a Mandelbrot set.

Erm... if you have the sheetings with measurements of 120, 240, and 360cm you can make divisions at 40cm. Hardly infinite and hardly high math.

If you can take a metric ruler and measure those sheets, you will be surprised.

The irony? All the imperial units are defined in SI units. Go figure!

even funnier? nobody actually has a solid grasp on all of the imperial units and the conversions between them anyway. i mean, honestly, what's a furlong? how many inches in a mile? how many gallons in a bushel? and how big are acres anyway?

i honestly couldn't tell you without looking it up. i doubt most people could. the only two measurements i can see causing confusion if we changed over to si overnight would be kilometers and celsius (or even kelvins if we wanted to be hardcore). but i say too fucking bad and quit your bitchin'

I think I would have a hard time converting over to metric for cooking, especially when you have recipes that want to give everything by weight. I know what a teaspoon is and I'd just assume keep it that way.

It's possible, you just have different lengths of time. Though I really fail to see the point in converting time to metric.
Yeah, most people didn't, because unlike, say, a foot, which is an arbitrary unit of measurement, a day or a year is a very real and concrete thing.

Yeah, most people didn't, because unlike, say, a foot, which is an arbitrary unit of measurement, a day or a year is a very real and concrete thing.
Obviously. What you do is take 24 hours and divide it by 10 and get 2.4 hours which is the new metric hour. Voila.

The only problem occurs with days in a year, which is solved through the re-introduction of a waste month -where extra days are dumped.

I think I would have a hard time converting over to metric for cooking, especially when you have recipes that want to give everything by weight. I know what a teaspoon is and I'd just assume keep it that way.

people have to use actual measuring implements when cooking anyway. which means it matters not at all what units are used - assuming you can count, that is.

I understand a lot of the logic behind metric measurements, but I think in Imperial units and can't imagine switching over in my lifetime. This is the same reason I can't completely immerse myself in another foreign language; every word has to have an English counterpart.

Metric time would be hard to pull off because of how used to the current system everyone is. So long as time is based off the rotation of the Earth, metric time wouldn't work. We would have to base our time off something else to necessitate a change.

However, I can see how a change in our current time system could be done without 10-hour days and such. Sure, the day would be broken into 100,000 seconds, and the second would be shortened, but the day should be broken into 100 measured units, not 10. A time-conscious society would need smaller units so as not to have to use fractions of units all the time (so a working day might be 32 hours under this system, rather than having to use three-and-a-third hours a day or something inane.)

Obviously. What you do is take 24 hours and divide it by 10 and get 2.4 hours which is the new metric hour. Voila.
The other hideous problem is that the length of the day is not 24hrs, it's just around 24hrs, but it really is variable and a second has to be added or substracted now and then if you need to keep your clocks really on time.

One could create a whole new unit of 10,000th of a day, but I think it would be too much of a hassle. And people are going to be living in space colonies before long anyway.

The only problem occurs with days in a year, which is solved through the re-introduction of a waste month -where extra days are dumped.
The Mayans had this system of 18 months with four weeks of five days each. At the end of the year you added an extra week of festivities (which is what happens the last week of December anyway) and that week would be six days long every four years. It worked pretty well for them.

The Mayans had this system of 18 months with four weeks of five days each. At the end of the year you added an extra week of festivities (which is what happens the last week of December anyway) and that week would be six days long every four years. It worked pretty well for them.

I can't imagine how that would mess with working hours. Probably would only get one day a week off and then have to work 10 hours a day. That, and the bills would come due a whole lot faster.

I can't imagine how that would mess with working hours. Probably would only get one day a week off and then have to work 10 hours a day. That, and the bills would come due a whole lot faster.
Currently one takes off 10 days of every 35. The Mayan method would mean 7 days every 35. So, if anything one would work shorter days (if you want to keep the hours per month constant).

And the bills would come more often but for a lesser amount each time.

Or maybe that's why the Mayans didn't have cable. Or maybe only basic.

It really depends on the subject some things make sense with imperial more then metric and some the other way round and by the way i am 15 and i do infact prefer imperial to me it makes more sense but then that my opion.

The other hideous problem is that the length of the day is not 24hrs, it's just around 24hrs, but it really is variable and a second has to be added or substracted now and then if you need to keep your clocks really on time.

One could create a whole new unit of 10,000th of a day, but I think it would be too much of a hassle. And people are going to be living in space colonies before long anyway.


The Mayans had this system of 18 months with four weeks of five days each. At the end of the year you added an extra week of festivities (which is what happens the last week of December anyway) and that week would be six days long every four years. It worked pretty well for them.
The Greeks, Romand & Hebrews did the same. It's not a bad idea.

So long as time is based off the rotation of the Earth, metric time wouldn't work.

what relation do minutes and seconds have to the rotation of the earth? the only two measures of time on earth that are built in by the universe are the day and the year (and the lunar month, if we cared to use it). how we divide them up beyond that is completely arbitrary and can be changed any way we like.

I like the cleaness of the metric system, but I don't like the actual size of the increments, as I find it harder to estimate with them. For example, the last segment of my little finger is almost exactly 1 inch, meaning I can use it to estimate in clean, small numbers, whereas if I was to use centimeters, I'd quickly get numbers that are harder to interpret. I'd probably have to give a range. Same thing with heights, if I say I'm 5'10" people have a better idea of how tall I am than if I say 1.77m, because the size of the imperial unit is more easily estimated for comparison.

Metric for sure. Everything divides by 10, unlike Imperial where it seems to be totally random & confusing.

having grown up with the metric system my whole life, I refuse to learn the Imperial system. It's so much clumsier and bothersome to learn the weird numbers.
10.
I'm all about the number 10, and it's multiples.
The only things I use Imperial measurements for are height and weight. Come to think of it, I've never heard anyone say, "I am 1.3m tall." I'll have to start doing that to aggravate old people who learned the Imperial system. :P
First I need to figure out how tall I am in meters... ah, it's not worth it. :P

even funnier? nobody actually has a solid grasp on all of the imperial units and the conversions between them anyway. i mean, honestly,

what's a furlong?

220 yards...or 201 meters if you prefer

how many inches in a mile?

Easy...12 inches x 5280 feet = 63360 inches in a miles
Or you can go with Nautical miles...12 x 6076 = 72912

how many gallons in a bushel?

Gallons measure liquid volume, bushels measure dry volume, so there the question has no answer

and how big are acres anyway?

43560 square feet

...I suppose you're right, I didn't know them all, but the only ones I looked up were feet in a Nautical mile, and how many yards in a furlong...

...but come on, NOBODY uses furlongs anymore. :p

Bah. Imperial is #1, always has been. I'll stick to 1/2 lb. burgers and 1,760 yards to a mile any day. The four-minute mile was the mark to beat, not the 2.489494 minute kilometer, or whatever it would be.. same goes for the 26.2 mile marathon.. It makes sense in that it's cultural. It makes sense in the same way the Chinaman's funny hat makes sense, or the bagpipes or the ukelele: it's part of our culture. Use SI in the lab, fine.. but culture makes sense simply as culture, and doesn't require utility to validate it..

...but come on, NOBODY uses furlongs anymore. :p

Not a gambler then, are ye?

Same thing with heights, if I say I'm 5'10" people have a better idea of how tall I am than if I say 1.77m, because the size of the imperial unit is more easily estimated for comparison.
Actually, if you went to a country using only the metric system and said you're 5'10", nobody would understand you. It's all about the system you're used to.

back to the original question: metric is better.

...I've never heard anyone say, "I am 1.3m tall." ...
Really?

I'm 1.87 .... I wouldn't even know what that is in feet - and everytime they quote someone's height in feet, I just know that 7 is pretty damned tall.

...I've never heard anyone say, "I am 1.3m tall." ...
Probably because very few people are so short. :p

Not a gambler then, are ye?

What...they still use furlongs for horse/dog racing? :confused:

Meh...I play blackjack at the casino maybe three times a year, and I join football office pools occasionally...otherwise no, I'm not a gambler. :)

2Gallons measure liquid volume, bushels measure dry volume, so there the question has no answer

actually, there is (or was) something called a 'dry gallon'. which is not the same volume as a wet one - that would be silly. of course, the concept of volume itself doesn't really care whether the thing measured will get you wet or not, so clearly no matter which gallon you use there would be some specific number of them in a bushel.

according to this site (http://www.goodcooking.com/conversions/liq_dry.htm) there are 8 dry gallons in a bushel. and 1 dry gallon = 1.1636 liquid gallons. which means that you could put about 9.309 gallons of milk in a bushel-sized container.

oh yeah, also note that neither of those gallons in the american system are the same volume as their imperial counterparts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallon).

did i mention that i find the entire system so thoroughly insane as to make changing to si border on being something of a moral imperative?

Really?

I'm 1.87 .... I wouldn't even know what that is in feet - and everytime they quote someone's height in feet, I just know that 7 is pretty damned tall.

it's approximately 6 feet, slightly over. i think 6 feet is pretty close to 1.83 m

What...they still use furlongs for horse/dog racing? :confused:


No clue about dog.. but horses, yup. It's all furlongs. :)

I can't imagine how that would mess with working hours. Probably would only get one day a week off and then have to work 10 hours a day. That, and the bills would come due a whole lot faster.

why?

I'm actually pretty competent with the metric system. It's kind of like being bilingual. I think in imperial (or rather American standard) measure, but I can generally do the conversions in my head.

Hmmm, the problem with imperial is it has no standard base, so conversion is hard. The problem with metric is it has a really crap base - 10, its only factors being 5 and 2, which means it's impractical. I think 12 would possibly be the best base for a standard system, due to it being the smallest 'abundant' number i.e. its factors total more than the number.

Britain is great though. Everything must be sold in metric measurements, but we don't exclude products from being labeled in imperial too. Just for all those people who are too used to imperial. However, products get sold in quantities like 1.136 litres i.e. 2 pints... actually, I'm not sure about beer, that might be excluded. Besides I agree with the drunk from 1984 - half a litre is too little and a litre is too much.

I grew up with the metric system and used it all my life.
Whenever some measurements are given in imperial, I'll look it up or try to estimate, and I usually end up wrong ;)

To be honest, I never understood the imperial system.. it seems unneccessarily compilcated and somehow outdated...

I can usually work with both for most day to day things. I do some things in metric, some in imperial. I can most things in both.

Metric is grand.
I can work out Imperial Roughly its like 24.25 or something.

Metirc, it's the only scientific measuring system of the two options

Both work fine, depends on how you grow up. I do architecual drafting in imperial, no prob. Metrics is used in the states, and taught as well as many people have mentioned, but we don't use it. Why? Because it really doesn't matter, and who wants to rewrite all those building codes? I don't.

There's no superior system. I personally find it quite easy to use either, its not hard, memorize a few conversion numbers and no-problemo.

I like the cleaness of the metric system, but I don't like the actual size of the increments, as I find it harder to estimate with them. For example, the last segment of my little finger is almost exactly 1 inch, meaning I can use it to estimate in clean, small numbers, whereas if I was to use centimeters, I'd quickly get numbers that are harder to interpret. I'd probably have to give a range. Same thing with heights, if I say I'm 5'10" people have a better idea of how tall I am than if I say 1.77m, because the size of the imperial unit is more easily estimated for comparison.


You have hit it on the head, the imperial units were generally derived in such a way that you can estimate easier without measuring tools. Metric is easier with calculations which is why science uses it, especially physics. I am from the UK and we had to learn both systems at school (only 6 years ago) and the most common conversionsused. So I have my prefered measurements for measuring different things. e.g miles for distances on the earth and metres for when I do an experiment.

Metirc, it's the only scientific measuring system of the two options


You should note that there was two different scientific measuring systems used about 40 years ago. The scientists then though generally agreed to use the SI system but sometimes you find the other system being used as it is more appropiate for that situation.

imperial frankly sounds batshit crazy compared to the easily-understandable fun of the metric system
of course its what you're brought up with that makes all the difference there - i've never been taught the imperial system (not in school and i left 3 years ago), and from what i've heard from its use here and there, its crazy ;)

that said, being from the UK i'm quite happy to use some bits of both systems, such as miles rather than km, but i wouldn't be adverse to switiching to km and an entirely metric system if i had to

Ah, yes, measuring feet with your feet cannot be beaten. :p

This discussion reminds me of a The Simpsons episode, the one where Bart had to go to fat camp and to pay for it the family had to turn the Simpsons home into a German youth hostel.

One of the Germans was enumerating what is wrong with America by saying: "Problem # ... with America; No metric system, what is this, the time of Charlemagne?"

Anyway, that being my point, what I like about Imperial is that it is one of the few claims (the only claim?) that the United States has to being more rustic old-school medieval European than any European nation.

Anyway, that being my point, what I like about Imperial is that it is one of the few claims (the only claim?) that the United States has to being more rustic old-school medieval European than any European nation.
Lol! We are so retro old-school, its unbelievable! :p

I believe it is called being backwards.

I believe it is called being backwards.
Noted.

Noted.
Blame Utah.

I like a bit of both. Practically, metric is more useful, but I like old and obscure measurements. If I want to use cubits I can, dammit!

What is confusing is when Imperial and American measurements are different. Pints, for instance. 568ml for the proper one (20 (imperial) fl oz.), 473 in the American (16 US fl oz). No wonder they can't handle their drink ;)

Oh, and "A pint's a pound the world around". Eh? Measuring what?

Now why I am all for metric for other mesurements the pain of converting our entire history (records and such) would be not worth the effort
Where would be the need for that? If i stumble across measurement in old texts, i convert them to new ones on an as-needed basis.