NationStates Jolt Archive

For those that have been arguing that metric is meaningless to them, are you really trying to say that you are too stupid to learn a new set of mental approximations?

I am old enough to have been taught to do calculations in £.s.d., I grew up thinking in furlongs and half hundredweights. Now I work quite happily, including estimates of distance and fuel consumption etc in both systems.

Metric is easier, it just needs a little bit of acceptance from those that were, like me, schooled in doing obscure divisions by 14 etc.

So, what are your thoughts on the metric system? Love it? Hate it? Why?

I neither hate it nor love it, however I do prefer using it. With that said, I don't see the SI (the International System of Units — the modern metric system) completely replacing the U.S. customary units [English units] anytime soon. I'm sure it will happen some day, but for those expecting it to happen overnight are expecting to much. It will be a gradual process as metric slowly works its way in by first being jointly used [I.E. a product will be listed in both units of measurements].

To give you just one idea of why the U.S. hasn't switched completely over to metric one need only look at the amount of roads we have, as of 2005 there were 6,430,366 kilometers {Source-CIA Factbook} of roadways and one can only image how expensive it would be to even begin to replace those thousands upon thousands of speed limit and other signs. I can't remember how much each one of those signs cost, but from what I remember it wasn't exactly cheap.

The closest any other nations come to the U.S. in the amount of roadways is India with 3,383,344 kilometers[2002] and then the entire European Union with 2,394,641 kilometers[2005].

So, to all those who can't stand the U.S. system, I'm sorry, but it's here to stay for the foreseeable future and you'll just have to get used to it. However, you'll be glad to know that more and more of us Americans are learning the joys and benefits of using metric.

In the meantime, when our system starts to drive you stark raving mad, I ask you to please be patience with us and to help you along with your madness may I suggest this site as, but one of many-United_States Customary Units (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_customary_units)

For those that have been arguing that metric is meaningless to them, are you really trying to say that you are too stupid to learn a new set of mental approximations?

I am old enough to have been taught to do calculations in £.s.d., I grew up thinking in furlongs and half hundredweights. Now I work quite happily, including estimates of distance and fuel consumption etc in both systems.

Metric is easier, it just needs a little bit of acceptance from those that were, like me, schooled in doing obscure divisions by 14 etc.

The metric system make sense, yes. But converting Imperial measurements to metric is just a hassle. Metric can stay being used in science, but for everyday uses, Imperial should stay.

The metric system make sense, yes. But converting Imperial measurements to metric is just a hassle.

I found an easy to use method, without any hassle. Wait for it-it's called a Calculator. It can convert anything to anything and back again with just a push of a button. :D

I found an easy to use method, without any hassle. Wait for it-it's called a Calculator. It can convert anything to anything and back again with just a push of a button. :D

I'm not going to carry a damned calculator to go shopping.

The metric system make sense, yes. But converting Imperial measurements to metric is just a hassle. Metric can stay being used in science, but for everyday uses, Imperial should stay.

So you're never going to go to another country? Or be in a line of work where you need to deal with people in other countries?

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13260077']But what about metric time? During the French Revolution days were divided into 10 hours, with each hour made up of 100 minutes and each minute made up of 100 seconds. Changing over to that would certainly be interesting. :D

Second are SI time, that doesn't need to change.

If we were computers, we would work fine with Metric, but as Humans, we work best with measurements tailored to our experiences.

For most of the world, those are the same things.

Which ones? Most are self referential. A meter is the distance light travels in about 3e-8 seconds. A litre is 0.1 m^3. A litre has a mass of 1 km.

Which are based of the imperial system?

If I remember correctly, out of the seven units, the only one that still has a Physical definition is the kilogram, the rest started defining themselves a while ago.

To be honest, the reason I prefer the Imperial System is due to a combination of Euroscepticism and the simple fact that 'kilometre' has three syllables and mile one. Well, that's what I think.

Mile has two syllables, slightly less sometimes depending on how you pronounce it, we usually shorten kilometre to "k", which is quicker than saying mile.

And I truly don't know why they would choose that number instead of defining a meter to be the distance light travels in 1/300,000,000th of a second.

Because the speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458 m/s, if you defined the metre as the distance light travels in 1/300,000,000th of a second the definition of one metre would change.

The whole point was to keep the definition of a metre the same, but define it in a way that wasn't tied to a physical object which is subject to damage and thermal expansion.

We've been living with the metric system in Britain for a while now. Packaged foods all have their net weight in grams or kilograms printed on them somewhere.
Soft drinks are sold in litres or millilitres - typical sizes are 500 mL, 1L, 1.5mL and 2L. Even bottled and canned beer is sold in metric, although the sizes do vary. You can get 275 mL bottles, but also 330 mL, 500 mL, 660 mL etc. Some brands, for example Stella Artois and Carling, still sell "pint cans", although these officially are 568 mL.

However, one bizarre result is found in the marketing of milk. I have yet to be able to buy milk in sizes of 500 mL, 1L, 2L etc. Milk is still sold in pints - you get 1 pint bottles, 2 pints, 4 pints and sometimes 6 pints. It doesn't usually say pints on the bottles - instead you get the measurement in mL, for example 568 mL for the 1 pint size. It seems that even though we've accepted metrication, we want to hold onto some aspects of the imperial system.

Anyway, as a scientist, I have the greatest respect for the metric system. More to the point, the entire SI units system makes a lot more sense. Measuring weight in kilograms or grams makes sense from a scientific perspective, as it's easy, and there's less chance of errors. Measuring power consumption in Watts makes sense when you are calculating energy transfer by electricity or heat. Horsepower is a pretty crude unit to use, which is probably why it's only still used for mechanical engines.

But the biggest advantage of using SI is that everything links nicely. For example, in chemistry we measure quantities in moles. This is the part of chemistry that confuses a lot of people, but it really shouldn't, because it's actually very simple. On the periodic table, every element has a mass number. It's called the relative atomic mass, because it's related to the mass of the lightest element, hydrogen. So for example - Aluminium, with an atomic mass of 27, is 27 times heavier than hydrogen.
Anyway, if you take the same number of grams of an element as the atomic mass of that element, you have one mole (which is just a huge number). Let's take an example. Iron has atomic mass 56. Copper has atomic mass 64. So 56 grams of iron is one mole. And 64 grams of copper is one mole. So 56 grams of iron contains the same number of atoms as 64 grams of copper. See? It's not that complicated. But imagine how much more complicated it would be if you had to do that with imperial units. I wouldn't even try.

I'm am overly infatuated with it. Anyone who doesn't like it is a troll. The only complaint I have is that "pint" and "pound" are the best words of measure ever. They should've used those names. Millipint...millipound. :)

The problem with the imperial system is that the units are all founded on real life things, but totally arbitrary in how they relate to each other. Why are there 12 inches in a foot? Why 3 feet in a yard? Why 14 pounds in a stone? Where as the metric system is arbitrary in it's founding(The metre is defined as being a certain fraction of the distance between the equator and the North Pole. Incidentally, it the distance was measured incorrectly.), is perfectly sensible in how the units relate to each other. There are 100 centimetres in a metre, because that's what the centi- prefix means. There are 1000 metres in a kilometre, because that's what the kilo- prefix means.


...Which is exactly why I dislike both systems of measurement. We need a system of measurement founded on the atomic level, where one atom multiplied by ten several... Million times is the basic unit (like the Inch or Centimetre). This system of measurement will relate to other units just like the Metric system does.

I honestly don't see how anybody defends either system as a whole.

...Which is exactly why I dislike both systems of measurement. We need a system of measurement founded on the atomic level, where one atom multiplied by ten several... Million times is the basic unit (like the Inch or Centimetre). This system of measurement will relate to other units just like the Metric system does.

I honestly don't see how anybody defends either system as a whole.

Largely because once you get down to that level, you're not really dealing with discrete sizes. I mean that's the whole problem with QM, the atom isn't this chunk of matter, it's a highly complicated wave-particle system. Sure, you can approximate sizes based on it, but that doesn't even then seem to make sense.

For those that have been arguing that metric is meaningless to them, are you really trying to say that you are too stupid to learn a new set of mental approximations?

I am old enough to have been taught to do calculations in £.s.d., I grew up thinking in furlongs and half hundredweights. Now I work quite happily, including estimates of distance and fuel consumption etc in both systems.

Metric is easier, it just needs a little bit of acceptance from those that were, like me, schooled in doing obscure divisions by 14 etc.


I grew up in Canada (and the UK for a bit), and have gone through the conversions process when Canada switched over. Frankly, I think naturally in metric these days with only a couple of things that STILL give me problems even after the decades that have passed since the cutover.

For example, the car adverts can tell me that their vehicle has a fuel efficiency of 12.6l/100K, and it still doesn't sink in. I know that it's worse than 11.7l/100k, but I need to convert to miles per gallon to get a real sense of how good the efficiency is. Tell me that a car gets 35mpg though, and I know what that means where it counts - the wallet.

And height. Someone tells me that they're 187cm tall or 171 or whatever, and I have no fricken clue what that really means as I just haven't learned to visualize the subtle differences that the statements 5'8" or 6'1" mean in relation to my own height.

But temperatures, weights, distances, etc - all have sunk in to the point where I don't do that conversion-in-the-head like I used to have to.

I'm good with metric for temperature and distance...but not length, height or weight. Who knows why. And drugs are always pounds and ounces.

...Which is exactly why I dislike both systems of measurement. We need a system of measurement founded on the atomic level, where one atom multiplied by ten several... Million times is the basic unit (like the Inch or Centimetre). This system of measurement will relate to other units just like the Metric system does.

I honestly don't see how anybody defends either system as a whole.

Well. An atom is pretty arbitrary too. I mean, which atom would you pick? Hydrogen? Maybe gold because of the gold standard? :p

The meter might be arbitrarily begun, but it's not like the imperial system where *every* unit has it's origins in medieval England or whatever and is just messily incompatible with every other unit.

Plus, well. Look how obstinate some countries and peoples are about getting rid of the imp system(s) and taking on metric... it would be even more difficult to try to get them to convert to some new system AND all the metric supporters to do so. So practically speaking, I'll be happy if we can get more metric system going. Then maybe if someone comes up with a new, Perfect System of Measurement we can consider it... but no one has....

I grew up in Canada (and the UK for a bit), and have gone through the conversions process when Canada switched over. Frankly, I think naturally in metric these days with only a couple of things that STILL give me problems even after the decades that have passed since the cutover.

For example, the car adverts can tell me that their vehicle has a fuel efficiency of 12.6l/100K, and it still doesn't sink in. I know that it's worse than 11.7l/100k, but I need to convert to miles per gallon to get a real sense of how good the efficiency is. Tell me that a car gets 35mpg though, and I know what that means where it counts - the wallet.

And height. Someone tells me that they're 187cm tall or 171 or whatever, and I have no fricken clue what that really means as I just haven't learned to visualize the subtle differences that the statements 5'8" or 6'1" mean in relation to my own height.

But temperatures, weights, distances, etc - all have sunk in to the point where I don't do that conversion-in-the-head like I used to have to.

i'm the same, and i grew up with metric. here in the UK we still do our road signs in miles, so mpg is still the standard; and most people do height in feet and inches, and weight in stone.

we're semi-metric, but i have no doubt its the superior system

Largely because once you get down to that level, you're not really dealing with discrete sizes. I mean that's the whole problem with QM, the atom isn't this chunk of matter, it's a highly complicated wave-particle system. Sure, you can approximate sizes based on it, but that doesn't even then seem to make sense.

Theoretically an electron associated with an atom could be anywhere, even somewhere completely different right? Even if it is incredibly unlikely.

...Which is exactly why I dislike both systems of measurement. We need a system of measurement founded on the atomic level, where one atom multiplied by ten several... Million times is the basic unit (like the Inch or Centimetre). This system of measurement will relate to other units just like the Metric system does.

I honestly don't see how anybody defends either system as a whole.

Actually, the second is defined as being a certain number of osscilations of a certain atom. I don't remember how many or which atom, but there you have it. And the metre is now defined relative to the speed of light, which is far more universal than atom sizes which vary from.....well from atom to atom. And there are AMU's, Atomic Mass Units, which are units for measuring the mass of atoms (:eek:), such that 1AMU = the mass of a proton

I'm not going to carry a damned calculator to go shopping.

Carry a slide rule. Many of them can fit in your pocket.

For accuracy? Metric.

For aesthetic reasons? Imperial.

Why? Because the imperial system's is based on the human body (google something called the human scale and the golden section).

For accuracy? Metric.

For aesthetic reasons? Imperial.

Why? Because the imperial system's is based on the human body (google something called the human scale and the golden section).

I suspect you mean phi, the golden ratio.

My hypothetical daughter's, yes. Err, hmm. I just wouldn't let the local lord come and rape her.

Why? It's tradition.

In such a formal thread, would you want him to say "As to your noble popping the virgins' cherries"?

Heheh very funny, I love the way you use another metaphor, and proclaim in as somehow more polite than the previous metaphor!?

For example, the car adverts can tell me that their vehicle has a fuel efficiency of 12.6l/100K, and it still doesn't sink in. I know that it's worse than 11.7l/100k, but I need to convert to miles per gallon to get a real sense of how good the efficiency is. Tell me that a car gets 35mpg though, and I know what that means where it counts - the wallet.Actually, you'd probably need the real values to get the real sense of how good the efficiency is.

Actually, you'd probably need the real values to get the real sense of how good the efficiency is.
How is fuel efficiency reported in metric countries? 35 mpg would be about 15 km/l, but I wonder if it's advertised differently.

How is fuel efficiency reported in metric countries? 35 mpg would be about 15 km/l, but I wonder if it's advertised differently.

Roods per firkin. In the UK we still seem to use mpg, we have ended up halfway between metric and imperial - probably the worst situation of all.

How is fuel efficiency reported in metric countries? 35 mpg would be about 15 km/l, but I wonder if it's advertised differently.

The way it was done by the other poster, in litres per 100km.

Instead of telling you how far you will get with a certain amount of fuel, it tells you how much fuel you need to travel a certain distance.

Also, miles are made of epic fail. I hereby, quite seriously declare, that if anyone speaks of miles in my presence, without making it clear that they are using the imperial system, then they are talking about roughly 25km per mile. I have good reasons to make that assumption.

The way it was done by the other poster, in litres per 100km.

Instead of telling you how far you will get with a certain amount of fuel, it tells you how much fuel you need to travel a certain distance.

Also, miles are made of epic fail. I hereby, quite seriously declare, that if anyone speaks of miles in my presence, without making it clear that they are using the imperial system, then they are talking about roughly 25km per mile. I have good reasons to make that assumption.

And those reasons are?

And those reasons are?

They aren't nautic miles.. I'm curious, too, now.

The way it was done by the other poster, in litres per 100km.

Instead of telling you how far you will get with a certain amount of fuel, it tells you how much fuel you need to travel a certain distance.

Also, miles are made of epic fail. I hereby, quite seriously declare, that if anyone speaks of miles in my presence, without making it clear that they are using the imperial system, then they are talking about roughly 25km per mile. I have good reasons to make that assumption.
25 km per mile? There isn't any contemporary definition for a mile that would run that many kilometers. Going back to some obscure definition might produce a longer mile, but the Swedes, etc, don't use them any more...

And those reasons are?

One Mile, 7.5km (http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansk_mil)

Hmm, seems like I got confused by one of my old physics books, nevertheless, it remains the large number of 7.5km.

Note - I am going to check my physics book now, because it actually said that one Danish mile was 25km. That, I have just discovered, is wrong. I want to be sure that my physics book actually said that.

This is why the imperial measurement is made of epic fail ;) One foot in Britain is not one foot in France is not one foot in Denmark.

Also, miles are made of epic fail. I hereby, quite seriously declare, that if anyone speaks of miles in my presence, without making it clear that they are using the imperial system, then they are talking about roughly 25km per mile. I have good reasons to make that assumption.

I only ever use miles as a figure of speech, mostly because declare something "kilometres away" never really sounds right.

One Mile, 7.5km (http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansk_mil)

Hmm, seems like I got confused by one of my old physics books, nevertheless, it remains the large number of 7.5km.

Note - I am going to check my physics book now, because it actually said that one Danish mile was 25km. That, I have just discovered, is wrong. I want to be sure that my physics book actually said that.

This is why the imperial measurement is made of epic fail ;) One foot in Britain is not one foot in France is not one foot in Denmark.
Like there are any Danes still using the _mil_. That milepost kind of belies the age of that measurement.

But even the imperial system is now referenced to the metric system now, isn't it? I mean an inch is defined as 2.54 centimeters. And even back in the bronze/iron ages, a foot was typically defined as a Greek foot, or about 304 mm. The need for standards was recognized early.

I only ever use miles as a figure of speech, mostly because declare something "kilometres away" never really sounds right.
Around here, the correct measurement for that distance is "yonder", as in "off yonder". Something a little farther is "a piece".

Like there are any Danes still using the _mil_. That milepost kind of belies the age of that measurement.

But even the imperial system is now referenced to the metric system now, isn't it? I mean an inch is defined as 2.54 centimeters. And even back in the bronze/iron ages, a foot was typically defined as a Greek foot, or about 304 mm. The need for standards was recognized early.

Actually, my point was that the imperial system uses measurements that have been used in other countries. These measurements, although they go by the same name, are never actually the same.

Hence epic fail for the imperial measurements.

It'd be like saying that a metre in the US is different from a metre in Germany.

I suspect you mean phi, the golden ratio.

Technically, it's the same thing.

How is fuel efficiency reported in metric countries? 35 mpg would be about 15 km/l, but I wonder if it's advertised differently.Fuel efficiency (at least the values published by the individual companies) is calculated without taking wind resistance, acceleration, or load into account, resulting in false values. Metric or imperial has nothing to do with it, actually.

Instead of telling you how far you will get with a certain amount of fuel, it tells you how much fuel you need to travel a certain distance.No it doesn't. It tells you how much fuel you would use if you drove your car for the imagined distance of 100 km at constant speed on a treadmill.

Actually, my point was that the imperial system uses measurements that have been used in other countries. These measurements, although they go by the same name, are never actually the same.

Hence epic fail for the imperial measurements.

It'd be like saying that a metre in the US is different from a metre in Germany.
More like saying a meter from 2007 is different from a meter in 1671. Which, by the way is a true statement.

For those of you here that seem to be a little confused about conversion factors, here are some examples. Feel free to ignore this post if you already know these.

1 inch = 2.54 centimetres

1 foot = 30.5 centimetres

1 mile = 1.61 kilometres

1 gallon = 4.54 litres

1 pint = 568 millilitres

1 ounce = 28.4 grams

1 pound = 0.454 kilograms

For scientists in the room, heres some more examples:

1 calorie = 4.184 joules

1 torr (mmHg) = 133 Pa

1 psi = 7237 Pa

1 eV = 96.5 kJ/mol

These all come out of my chemistry data booklet and are therefore reliable.
Any questions?

Like there are any Danes still using the _mil_. That milepost kind of belies the age of that measurement.

But even the imperial system is now referenced to the metric system now, isn't it? I mean an inch is defined as 2.54 centimeters. And even back in the bronze/iron ages, a foot was typically defined as a Greek foot, or about 304 mm. The need for standards was recognized early.

Is it a definition? Or an accepted conversion factor? I'm genuinely curious.

Any questions?

Why did you post that?

Why did you post that?

My guess, to show all those people complaining how hard conventions are, to go out and by a dictionary, or a diary or summit!

My guess, to show all those people complaining how hard conventions are, to go out and by a dictionary, or a diary or summit!

I suspect the item you're thinking of is a calculator.

And where are people talking about how hard conversions are.

I suspect the item you're thinking of is a calculator.

Naaa a diary, or dictionary, or encyclopedia, most of these items have conversion tables in them somewhere.

All over the thread.

Naaa a diary, or dictionary, or encyclopedia, most of these items have conversion tables in them somewhere.
Yes, but they don't make conversion any easier, or somehow refute someone saying that conversions are hard, if someone did, in fact, say that.

All over the thread.

I've been keeping up with it and I haven't noticed anyone saying that conversions are hard. You can buy calculators to do them for you. Though if the US would stop being a stubborn ass then nobody would ever have to.

(the metric system) creates innumerable hassles for every American over the age of 10..Bah! The NASA problems are because of the damn metric system! If they all used the Imperial system, there would be no problem!

Down with metric! Up the Imperial system!yeah its too much hassles for US.. if the rest of the World used our system there would be no problem... Lets use our Death star on the Countries that resist the Imperial system :rolleyes:

I was not going to vote because i dont love/hate.. but your posts have encouraged me to vote against you. :D

Yes, but they don't make conversion any easier, or somehow refute someone saying that conversions are hard, if someone did, in fact, say that.

They don't? How so? I mean if you are given the formula, maths, sum, whatever, you need to do to make a conversion, how does that not make the conversion easier?



I've been keeping up with it and I haven't noticed anyone saying that conversions are hard. You can buy calculators to do them for you. Though if the US would stop being a stubborn ass then nobody would ever have to.

Go check out Trollgards posts. Yes you can also buy calculators to do the job.

Heh it seems like a disagree with Ifreann day to me today, umm perhaps I have invented a new sport? Or maybe you have?

Is it a definition? Or an accepted conversion factor? I'm genuinely curious.
I've read different places that the yard was redefined to be based on the meter. The value that keeps showing up on the internet (and my calculator) is 1 yard = 0.9144 meter. If I can find our ISO standards, I'll check.

I've read different places that the yard was redefined to be based on the meter. The value that keeps showing up on the internet (and my calculator) is 1 yard = 0.9144 meter. If I can find our ISO standards, I'll check.

Thanks.

This is the sort of subject that I never know where to look for accurate info on.

Thanks.

This is the sort of subject that I never know where to look for accurate info on.

I don't even know if ISO is right. They will give you the proper way to express an inch, 'in' , but not necessarily how big one is. ANSI is another place to look, as is SAE.

I don't even know if ISO is right. They will give you the proper way to express an inch, 'in' , but not necessarily how big one is. ANSI is another place to look, as is SAE.

I'll check them out.

METRIC LAND
or: "What I think of the metric system" by Joan Pontius

In Belgium, you can buy jam in returnable jars, and once I finished my jar, and was cleaning it, and in the glass at the bottom was "3/8 L". And this sort of threw me, because I was a big metric fan, and the great advantage of the metric system was that it got rid of all those silly fractions. So why were they using them here in metric-land? Then I figured the jar was only so big, so it took up less space to print 3/8 L rather than 0.375 L.

But there was another possibility. That being that although the metric system looks good on paper, people/society finds fractions useful. So ok, we have the metric system for important stuff, but for certain situations, fractions will be used.

So then, I'm slowly picking up some Dutch, and we go out for beers, and Filip is always asking for "A Pincha", and I find out that actually he's saying "a pintje", meaning "a small pint". So here we are in metric land, and people are ordering their beers with English terms!

So this is really throwing me, and I say, yeah but Filip, it's not a pint, it's 250 milliliters! Why do you call it a pint? You've got the metric system, why don't you use it? Why don't you order in metric? You don't need those silly english measurements, you have New and Improved Metric units. When you go into a cafe, instead of shouting "Een Pintje Alstublieft" you should say, two-hundred-and-fifty-milliliters alstublieft." And he just gave me a strange look, and mumbled something about it being too hard to say. And ok, maybe giving the precise amount of milliliters is a bit extreme, but he could at least say, "A quarter liter alstublieft." But then maybe even that would be too difficult after lots of beer, so maybe just giving that one unit a name makes sense.

But then that means that something screwy is going on. Not only are the Europeans turning the metric system back into fractions, but they're giving names to them! We change everything into metric, then people find it more useful to use fractions, and then they give names to these fractions, and before you know it, we're back where we started from!

Then I got fired from my job in Brussels, or was asked to resign, or whatever you want to call it, I had LOTS of free time and not much to do. I read what I could find, but since my French and Dutch were so bad, this consisted of reading cook-books.

So I was reading these cooking books, and it was weird, because these recipes would have "half a cup" of one thing, and an "eet-lapel" or "koffie-lapel" of something else.

So I said, "Hey Filip, what's an eet-lapel?" And he told me it's an eating spoon (which is really a soup spoon), and a koffie lapel is a coffee spoon, like the english teaspoons. And I say, "But hey, we're in metric-land! Dat gaat niet!" And he says, "Of course we use the metric system, but in that one case, they're just writing it that way for the easiness of the people." (ie, to make it easy on everyone).

So then I go to my mother-in-law-to-be, and I say, "Hey, these recipes call for cup of something, how much is that exactly?" And she pulls out her cup that she drinks coffee from to show me, and I say,"Yeah, but aren't different cups sometimes different sizes?"

And then she said, "Ja zeker!" And she took me to her china cabinet and showed me all the different cups she has and all the different sizes there are. And then I said, "Yeah but Francine, doesn't this like, ever become a problem in knowing exactly how much to use?" and she shrugged her shoulders and nodded!

So that means the European kitchens are less precise than American and English. They just take any old cup, any old spoon! So where is the advantage of being metric? Then Filip says, yeah, but MOST recipes don't call for volumes, they call for weights, and this is true. BUT, how do you WEIGH a teaspoon of basil?!? How about a quarter teaspoon of nutmeg?!? And now he's going to baking school, and you should see him trying to weigh out his salt on our scale that I only use for weighing mail. It's so sad!

So then I get out my Joy of Cooking, and all these crazy units sortof start to make sense, to fit together. There are even conversions between weight and volume and length like in the metric system. A pint weighs a pound, and is 3 inches cubed. Half a pint is a cup, half of that is half a cup, half of that is a quarter cup, half of that is 2 tablespoons, and half of that is one tablespoon, and all these units in an ENGLISH kitchen can be measured out.

Then I start to realize that for length there is a similar problem in the metric system, in that you can't divide a meter continuously by 2 without getting fractions. In the english system, the rulers are divided by quarters and eighths and 16ths, but the metric ruler is divided into units of ten, so any fraction of that you just have to guess. It is IMPOSSIBLE to divide a meter by three, because you get 0.333333333 etc meters; using the metric ruler, a third on a metric meter doesn't exist! So then I start to think, hey, THAT'S why there are 12 inches in a foot, you can divide all sorts of ways, by 2, 3, 4, or 6, no problem! Cool!

So we have this friend who is a carpenter, and I see him, and I say, "Hey, Freddie, when you have a board a meter long, how do you divide it into 3?" And he sortof gives me a funny look, and says why would he want to do that. And I say, well, How does that work? Because in the metric system, a third of a meter isn't marked on your ruler so what do you do? don't you ever have a board of one meter that you have to divide by three? And he says No. And I'm sort of crestfallen, and then he adds, we don't buy boards by the meter, the standard lengths they sell are in 120 centimeters.

So NOW there is a NEW unit of measurement, call it the-standard-length- that-carpenters-buy-their-wood-in, and it is 120 centimeters! The THICKNESS of the wood is even in a number that is easily divisible, that is, 2.4 centimeters, and they call that a thumb! How long before the length of 120 centimeters has a name all to itself, and how long before some lunatic is going to come along, and say, "Hey, this-here is darn CONFUSING having that-there unit being 120 centimeters, and this-here unit being 2.4, we need a NEW measurement system, one where everything is in units of ten!"

So this is getting really interesting, and I head to the library, and look up measurement, and ALL THROUGH HISTORY, societies have used units of measurements that are evenly divisible at least 3 ways. Now we have this great metric system, and we can only divide by 2 and 5 without getting a fraction. Progress? Whassat?

Ok, and then there is the temperature thing. I always liked science because it was the one field of study that would be consistant throughout the world. I always found it a waste of time to study French or botany, because if, for example, you were on a desert island, these French words or plant names wouldn't do you any good. Science on the other hand was (WAS, past tense) a kind of ultimate truth for me, and this desert island thing used to be a kind of test as to whether something was valuable.

And it appears I'm not alone, because last time I was in America, I was voicing my opinion on the metric system, and someone said, "If I were on a desert island, I'd use a system that was divisible by ten." And I said, "But would your number system be based on ten?" The ONLY advantage of the metric system is that it can easily be written because we write our numbers in base ten. But that doesn't mean that if you were on a desert island YOUR number system would be in base ten. In fact, if you were on a desert island, and you needed a ruler, you wouldn't be ABLE to generate a precise system on base ten, because you'd have to estimate where to put the markings on the ruler! What you'd have to do is take your ruler, and divide it in half, and that in half, and put the markings THERE, and you'd end up with a ruler divided into 16 or 32 or 64 or something, but not ten!

And for thermometers, it seems that is precisely what Fahrenheit was up to. Fahrenheit was playing around and playing around and finally set ice water at 32, and body temperature at 96, so that there were 64 divisions between the two. That way, no matter where you are in the world, you can re-generate his thermometer. You stick the thermometer in ice water, and mark it there. Then you stick it under your tounge, and mark it there. Then you get a string, and fold it in half 6 times, and you have the 64 divisions between 32 and 96!

It was only after Fahrenheit died that body temperature was changed to 98.6. And this being because the boiling point of water was later deemed more reliable than body temperature. So boiling water was set at 212, and that made 180 "degrees" between it and the freezing point of water. But whoever made that change was probably completely ignorant of the problems Fahrenheit had gone through calibrating his thermometers.

Then the French Revolution came around, and a bunch of intellectuals were sitting around. And these intellectual types, they aren't sitting in labs, or making things, DOING measurements, they're just looking at the measurements on paper. So to them, all these fractions were a pain in the ass, and they decided that everything should be changed.

So they spent SIX YEARS deciding how long a meter should be, and then passed all sorts of laws REQUIRING everyone to use the measurements; people were FINED for not using them!

So then we had a new thermometer, in degrees Celsius. Then hot air balloons were getting popular and Boyle and Charles were playing around and trying to figure out how temperature affects volume and pressure of gases. But there was one hitch, that is, they wanted to be able to divide by the temperature of the gas. This was a problem whenever the temperature was zero. So eventually a number was found that could be added to the measured temperature so that all their equations would work out nicely, and this new temperature was called Kelvin.

Then a bunch of intellectuals came around once more, and decide that these gas laws, instead of being a TOOL, used to DESCRIBE the properties of gas, that these laws were some kind of ultimate truth. And then they decided that since the equations won't work at zero Kelvin, that nothing can possible exist at that temperature! And now that's what they teach us in physics class! I HATE that! If the fields of science and history even overlapped a little bit, we MIGHT be able to move in a direction we refer to as "progress", but the way it is now is completely ridiculous.

Any praise for the metric system hits a raw nerve with me. The metric system is a symbol to me of the division of the ruling class and the people doing all the work. The ruling class (no pun intended) makes all these rules that are completely impractical, and everyone else has to sort of make do, find their way around it. The metric system also symbolizes to me this blind faith we have in science, that science is some kind of ultimate truth, instead of a tool we use to make life easier for ourselves. And because of this blind faith we have, "science" ends up making life harder, less practical for ourselves.

Born in '91 (In the UK) so raised to use the metric system. BUT NOTHING IS METRIC - we learn in metric but if you go to measure food or wood etc people always use imperial including my parents. Metric either in 10s, 100s or 1000s. Imperial in weird units which dont relate to one another - COME ON METRICISE THE ROADS MPH ==> KPH
Metres and centimetres rule haha (crappy pun)

Born in '91 (In the UK) so raised to use the metric system.
And rightly so. As someone who has done physics in both metric and imperial, thanks to outdated textbooks, I can tell you which one we need.

BUT NOTHING IS METRIC - we learn in metric but if you go to measure food or wood etc people always use imperial including my parents.
I can't say I measure wood often, but hey. But apart from that, I suggest you look at a tin of beans, car manual, bottle of beer and any DIY instructions. They'll all be in metric. I never ever have to use the imperial system unless in the pub. Period.

Metric either in 10s, 100s or 1000s. Imperial in weird units which dont relate to one another - COME ON METRICISE THE ROADS MPH ==> KPH
Metres and centimetres rule haha (crappy pun)
Bah-doom tish.

And rightly so. As someone who has done physics in both metric and imperial, thanks to outdated textbooks, I can tell you which one we need.


I can't say I measure wood often, but hey. But apart from that, I suggest you look at a tin of beans, car manual, bottle of beer and any DIY instructions. They'll all be in metric. I never ever have to use the imperial system unless in the pub. Period.


Bah-doom tish.


Thanks, I meant in wood workshops etc (if my dad needs me to help him get wood I go with him to the - I guess you are american cause you say period - we say full stop haha

Thanks, I meant in wood workshops etc (if my dad needs me to help him get wood I go with him to the - I guess you are american cause you say period - we say full stop haha

Newer Burmecia
CyberFruit Merchant

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: University of Sheffield. Not Hallam.
Posts: 1,455
;)

Then a bunch of intellectuals came around once more, and decide that these gas laws, instead of being a TOOL, used to DESCRIBE the properties of gas, that these laws were some kind of ultimate truth. And then they decided that since the equations won't work at zero Kelvin, that nothing can possible exist at that temperature! And now that's what they teach us in physics class! I HATE that!

I stopped caring what they have to say here, that's like complaining that the speed of light is unreachable just because some equations say so.

I wish you people would stop bitching about the Metric system and just fucking assimilate already. This whole, 'let's be different than the rest of the world' crap is SO twentieth century.

I wish you people would stop bitching about the Metric system and just fucking assimilate already. This whole, 'let's be different than the rest of the world' crap is SO twentieth century.

Well the majority of the countries in the world use the metric system so it would be Imperial system that would be different

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: University of Sheffield. Not Hallam.
Posts: 1,455

Sorry my bad :p ;D

That's americanism for ya haha

Well the majority of the countries in the world use the metric system so it would be Imperial system that would be different

Way to paraphrase what I said.

I'm Canadian.

I love the metric system, I think the US should shift to it...

Way to paraphrase what I said.

I'm Canadian.

again my bad

I love the metric system, I think the US should shift to it...

I agree (although I'm British)

I wish you people would stop bitching about the Metric system and just fucking assimilate already. This whole, 'let's be different than the rest of the world' crap is SO twentieth century.
I bet the Borg are metric.:)

I wish you people would stop bitching about the Metric system and just fucking assimilate already. This whole, 'let's be different than the rest of the world' crap is SO twentieth century.
If all of your friends did something, would you do it too -- just because they did?

Same thing here. America will adopt the metric system where and when it makes sense to do so. Just about everything I pick up is dual-labeled and almost no one knows what a slug is anymore.

If all of your friends did something, would you do it too -- just because they did? When my holding out made no sense, yeah. If my holding out made it difficult to communicate? Yeah. When I was just holding out just to be a douchebag? Yeah.

Unless I was feeling really pig-headed and stubborn for no particular reason.

Thanks.

This is the sort of subject that I never know where to look for accurate info on.
After a long and exhaustive search through the body of knowledge [say Bull Shit!], I've found this one (http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/appenC.html) authoritative mention of customary units being tied to metric standards... Look at C.8. We will publish Federal Register notices from time to time that establish standard conversion factors.

I'd forgotten about NIST. That's a real good place to look for standards.

When my holding out made no sense, yeah. If my holding out made it difficult to communicate? Yeah. When I was just holding out just to be a douchebag? Yeah.

Unless I was feeling really pig-headed and stubborn for no particular reason.
Just because it irritates someone beyond all reason, I will write to my legislators asking them to declare customary units to be the official units of all time and to prohibit all the dual-unit labeling that has invaded our country from the four corners of the world. Then we should build a wall to keep out all the illegal metrics.

After a long and exhaustive search through the body of knowledge [say Bull Shit!], I've found this one (http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/appenC.html) authoritative mention of customary units being tied to metric standards... Look at C.8. We will publish Federal Register notices from time to time that establish standard conversion factors.

I'd forgotten about NIST. That's a real good place to look for standards.

Interesting, though one wonders: why officiate a redefinition instead of slowly working towards an actual conversion to the metric system?

Interesting, though one wonders: why officiate a redefinition instead of slowly working towards an actual conversion to the metric system?
But we do have a federal conversion program...I suspect it falls to the Interior Department, but I remember reading that we have at least three federal bureaucrats assigned to the problem, pursuant to the Metric Conversion act of 1975.

But we do have a federal conversion program...I suspect it falls to the Interior Department, but I remember reading that we have at least three federal bureaucrats assigned to the problem, pursuant to the Metric Conversion act of 1975.

Heh, well they've certainly made a ton of progress since then.

I'm from the US and we lived in Spain for three years in the 1980's. We can still convert most measurements in our heads, but then we use a lot of non-US cookbooks. I still have problems converting MPH=KPH and miles=kilometers though. :(

Largely because once you get down to that level, you're not really dealing with discrete sizes. I mean that's the whole problem with QM, the atom isn't this chunk of matter, it's a highly complicated wave-particle system. Sure, you can approximate sizes based on it, but that doesn't even then seem to make sense.

Yeah, I wasn't even thinking about that (or many other things, as tired as I was). Suppose we could find a far more standard piece of matter on such a small scale? I doubt it, but that would be a good place to start.

If not, maybe a grain of sand, or even salt... Unless those are relatively uneven as well, which wouldn't quite work, either.

I don't actually know how to convert metric to imperial or even within imperial beyond inches and feet. Because I've never needed to, is it worth bothering?

The metric system is supported by terrorists...and the Borg.
The imperial system used to use an actual foot for the measurment of a 'foot'.

Choose wisely.

The metric system is supported by terrorists...and the Borg.
The imperial system used to use an actual foot for the measurment of a 'foot'.

Choose wisely.

SEGREGATIONIST!

you know your math education is bad when they change the law to make it easier for you to calculate distances, mass, and other measures, so all you have to do is add or subtract zeroes. j/k. Metric's okay, I don't care for it but it isn't really bad. Grew up on Imperial, makes sense to me. That and acres>hectares. :D

More like saying a meter from 2007 is different from a meter in 1671. Which, by the way is a true statement.

No.

What I said was that an inch in England is not an inch in France is not an inch in Germany.

A mile in the US is not a mile in Denmark is not a mile in France, etc...

So, the result of adopting imperial units would be that you would have at least two-dozen, if not more, different values for the same number AT THE SAME TIME.

It makes no difference that a metre from 2007 is different from a metre in 1671. It makes a lot of difference if a metre from the US in 2007 is different from a metre from Britain in 2007.

So, what are your thoughts on the metric system? Love it? Hate it? Why?

It's simple: no silly non-decimal multipliers (no, angles aren't measured in degrees, it's radiants!!!).

It's easy: multiply or divide basic units to measure non-basic quantities.

Its units can be easily defined (if you don't need to play with quantum mechanics) by some easily replicable astronomical and physical measurements: 1 second is 1/86400 of the day, 1 m is 1/40000000 of a meridian, 1 kg is the mass of 1/1000 of a cubic metre of pure water, 1 K is 1/273.16 of the thermodynamical temperature of the triple point of water iirc.

It's mass-length-time-current-(temperature), instead of force-lenght-time.

It's standard almost everywhere, and used in some fields even where it's not standard.

They don't? How so? I mean if you are given the formula, maths, sum, whatever, you need to do to make a conversion, how does that not make the conversion easier?
Because you still have to do it in your head or on paper, which is obviously what I meant.




Go check out Trollgards posts. Yes you can also buy calculators to do the job.
Where has he said that converting things from metric to imperial or vice versa is difficult? I'm sure he's said that phasing out one system and adopting another would be, but that's not the same thing.
If all of your friends did something, would you do it too -- just because they did?
If all your friends did something, would you refuse to do it, just because they were doing it?

Same thing here. America will adopt the metric system where and when it makes sense to do so. Just about everything I pick up is dual-labeled and almost no one knows what a slug is anymore.
But it makes no sense not to.

i prefer making sense to total arbitraryness. i thus favor generally the metric approach. except i do sometimes find it too easy to loose track of which peramiters i'm refering to with all the units being uniform like that. still it feels more logical to me for them to be. certainly simplifies scaling things up and down.
Indeed. I feel the same annoyedness by the way we meassure time and am yet thinking of wether there is a more SI way for it (Unix-ticks :) )

it's a pity humans were born with five fingers on each hand, ten total, rather then eight, for a total of 16, so we could naturally have a hexidecimal numbering system instead of base ten.

i love powers of two too!

QFT!

No.

What I said was that an inch in England is not an inch in France is not an inch in Germany.

A mile in the US is not a mile in Denmark is not a mile in France, etc...

So, the result of adopting imperial units would be that you would have at least two-dozen, if not more, different values for the same number AT THE SAME TIME.

It makes no difference that a metre from 2007 is different from a metre in 1671. It makes a lot of difference if a metre from the US in 2007 is different from a metre from Britain in 2007.
That's nonsense. Standards exist in both measuring systems. In fact, they are related by agreed upon conversion factors. Every contemporary inch is the same. That's due to some obscure treaty with the Commonwealth of Nations that defined a yard to be 0.9144 meters.

If all of your friends did something, would you do it too -- just because they did? You mean silly things like homework?

You mean silly things like homework?

The only place I see the metric system catching on is in the increasing popularity of 9mm cartridges...

Not only that, but it makes speeding tickets look much worse than they are...

But the number one reason for not switching is that if I have to understand the metric system, then the terrorists have won.

Okay, so I paraphrased Dave Barry.

Find some of his columns on the metric system -- they're hilarious. Not as funny as the idea of actually using it day-to-day, but still pretty damn funny.