rhys 0 #1 April 9, 2005 do those who use the impereal system think it is easy to use? i can work out/fathom thing in metric beacause the metric system seems to be based on water, 0 degrees, water freezes 100degrees, water boils 1 tonne = a cubic metre of water 1 gram= 1 cubic centemetre etc. with the imperial system there doesn't seem to be any trends, maybe there are and i just don't know about them? do you have to remember the % of each individual factor to get the product? like the difference between a foot and a mile. seems like hard work to me."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mccurley 1 #2 April 9, 2005 I grew up in Canada using imperial but am now fully metric (except altitude is still in feet right?!?!) Metric is much easier.Watch my video Fat Women http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRWkEky8GoI Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #3 April 9, 2005 I grew up in Brazil, using metric. Moved to the US. Metric is much easier. Yes, you can get used to imperial, but metric is easier. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #4 April 9, 2005 Quote (except altitude is still in feet right?!?!) yeh we use feet here in new zealand, euro's use metric though. i wish i had been taught metric. so i could fathom the distance. nauticle miles? they are the exception? is there a metric eqivilant? i guess i need to get a book on the subject "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #5 April 9, 2005 Quotedo those who use the impereal system think it is easy to use? with the imperial system there doesn't seem to be any trends, maybe there are and i just don't know about them? Farenheit has 100F as the body temp, 0 as the freezing point of salt water. More or less. Just as the meter is 1/ten millionth the circumfrence of the earth. If you're doing physic homework, you're much happier in metric. But in every day life, does it really make a difference? Or really that hard to use both systems as more convenient? Miles versus kilometers? No difference - whatever you're used to. Same for F versus C. Using celcius means using decimals, or rougher approximations. Have to convert to Kelvin for most physics. Feet versus meters - same. It's pretty rare that the things you measure in this you want to use the bigger units for. Calories versus KJ? No difference. KCals are more simply defined, both are actual metric. Kilograms versus pounds. Though it's much easier to convert between volume of liquids to mass/weight for water like substances, not all that useful to most. ml-l versus ounce/cup/quart/etc. Pretty clear win for the metric side. miles per gallon versus liters per 100km? Since you're using solving for fuel needed, mpg is much more helpful. l/100km seems like the work of a total asshole. Let's make everyone do two calculations instead of one! Now for skydiving, we might expect metric to be more useful given that feet and mph are a bit funky, but since we deal in per hour instead of per second, that nasty 3600 gets in the way. Easy enough to know that 1000ft ~= 5.5 seconds. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hungarianchick 0 #6 April 9, 2005 I grew up with metric in Europe. It made sense and was easy to work with since the exchange rates between the units of measurement are divisible by 10. 1km=1000m 1m=1000mm=100cm=10dm and so on The temperature was certainly the hardest for me to figure out when I moved to the UK and US. "I love cooking with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhys 0 #7 April 9, 2005 QuoteFeet versus meters - same. It's pretty rare that the things you measure in this you want to use the bigger units for. Kilograms versus pounds. Though it's much easier to convert between volume of liquids to mass/weight for water like substances, not all that useful to most. this is what i'm wondering. if you have driven half a mile how many feet is that? 1/2 km = 500m half of that again is 250m easy right how many feet in a mile exactly? the point i am getting at is that it must be hard to fathom the size and volume of things of you cant break the volumes down to something you can understand. example: if someone says there are 120 cubic metres of water in that swimming pool then i instantly know there are 120 tonnes of water in that swimming pool.(handy if you are an archetect) i want to know if you use the imperial system all your life can you make these sort of calculations without using a calculator? also i thoght the metre is from water as 'well' (no pun intended). 1cubic cm= 1 gram of water etc. where does the earths circumfrence come into it? that interests me"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites justinb138 0 #8 April 9, 2005 Quote this is what i'm wondering. if you have driven half a mile how many feet is that? 2640ft. Quote how many feet in a mile exactly? 5280ft. Quote the point i am getting at is that it must be hard to fathom the size and volume of things of you cant break the volumes down to something you can understand. Eh, I think it just depends on what you're used to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jimbarry 0 #9 April 9, 2005 QuoteJust as the meter is 1/ten millionth the circumfrence of the earth. On the planet I'm from, a meter is 1/ten millionth the distance between a pole and the equator. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andrewwhyte 1 #10 April 10, 2005 When dealing in large volumes of water, the Americans use acre-feet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #11 April 10, 2005 I am an American scientist, so I am more comfortable with the metric system. one cubic centimeter = one millliter. One milliliter weighs one gram. Everything is interconnected & is done in the power of ten. It all makes sense, unlike the "english" system which is all based on arbitrary crap like the length of Charlemagnes' foot and whatever. I say, lets all just switch to the metric system once & for all & be done with it. I am 175 cm and 69 kg, and I can deal with that. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #12 April 10, 2005 Quote It all makes sense, unlike the "english" system which is all based on arbitrary crap like the length of Charlemagnes' foot and whatever. You're absolutely right! It's not arbitary at all! No! It's a based on what some French guys -thought- was a correct measurement of the planet and then scratched into a metal bar! The problems only -start- there because guess what -- they were wrong! And what's so "special" about THIS puny little planet anyway? Lemme tell you something magical. It's ABSOLUTELY as arbitrary as any other system. There is NOTHING special about the metric system basic units of measurement for; length, weight, temperature . . . anything! Anyone that says otherwise really hasn't thought about it. Why would the weight of -water- be any less arbitrary than the weight of say . . . hydrogen or carbon? It's not!quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #13 April 10, 2005 Quote On the planet I'm from, a meter is 1/ten millionth the distance between a pole and the equator. No. It's not! Seriously! Look it up!quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #14 April 10, 2005 Quote this is what i'm wondering. if you have driven half a mile how many feet is that? 1/2 km = 500m half of that again is 250m easy right You've driven half a mile. Why did you want to convert to feet? Though any track guy can tell you it's ~800m too. Quote example: if someone says there are 120 cubic metres of water in that swimming pool then i instantly know there are 120 tonnes of water in that swimming pool.(handy if you are an archetect) i want to know if you use the imperial system all your life can you make these sort of calculations without using a calculator? Most of the ones that matter. How often does one need to know how much water is in their pool? That's why there really no big rush to convert in this country. Little to be gained for the effort. Cooking would benefit - teaspoons, tablespoons, then ounces? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #15 April 10, 2005 QuoteLemme tell you something magical. It's ABSOLUTELY as arbitrary as any other system. There is NOTHING special about the metric system basic units of measurement for; length, weight, temperature . . . anything! Anyone that says otherwise really hasn't thought about it. Why would the weight of -water- be any less arbitrary than the weight of say . . . hydrogen or carbon? It's not! Water = universal solvent. The advantage of the metric system is that weight, distance, volume and temperature are all interconnected. 1 cubic centimeter = 1 milliliter. And one milliliter of water weighs one gram. Water freezes at 0 degrees and boils at 100 degrees. In the English system, distance, volume and mass are not interconnected. And also everything in metric is based on ten. It makes it real easy in the lab when I want to convert nanograms to micrograms, for example. Just move the decimal point three places over. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #16 April 10, 2005 Quote Water = universal solvent. The "universal solvent" argument is as arbitary as anything. Hydrogen = most abundant thing in the universe (that we know of). Hydrogen = first element Say that you like the metric system because you happen to like it and I'll accept that. Say it's somehow superior because of it's -design- and we'll simply have to disagree. The metric system -is- a kludged together system designed by a couple of French guys -- nothing more.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhys 0 #17 April 10, 2005 dude you don't make sense. hydrogen yeah we can all see feel and ingest that and realise it.not. the metric system makes plenty of sense the imperial system does not. tradition is the only reasson the imperial system is still around. common sense is the reason the metric system was invented. is it not? you obviously do not understand the metric system?"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jimbarry 0 #18 April 10, 2005 QuoteQuote On the planet I'm from, a meter is 1/ten millionth the distance between a pole and the equator. No. It's not! Seriously! Look it up! Huh? You're kidding... Here's the deal (google it if you want): a. the circumference of the earth is just about 40,000km b. a meter is 1/10mill the distance between a pole and the equator This supports the history of how the meter came about: take the distance between a pole and the equator and divide by 10 million. (Not to mention making maps is my profession.) If you still don't agree, please post a source. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #19 April 10, 2005 The SI system based on meters, kilograms, and seconds is a RATIONALIZED system, meaning that when you plug the numbers in SI into a physics (or chemistry) equation, the answer always comes out in the correct SI unit without any wierd conversion factors. This is not true of Imperial. That alone is sufficient justification for using it (SI) in any branch of science or engineering. I'd like to see someone calculate the Fermi energy of a metal crystal using only Imperial units, or the density of states at the band edge of a semiconductor. Or how about the power input to an electric motor from its current and emf, using only Imperial units. What, for that matter, ARE the Imperial units of current and emf?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #20 April 11, 2005 Bwahahaha. Quote (Not to mention making maps is my profession.) If you still don't agree, please post a source. Man, I LOVE it when somebody says something like that to me! Especially if the person is arguing something from the perspective of being a -professional- in a field. Whatever you do, don't let your boss see this thread! LOL. Do you seriously think I'd speak up about something as seemingly "obvious" as this if I didn't already KNOW the correct answers? Yes, this is what the people that made up the metric system -thought- but unfortunately, they didn't have the measurement -correct- to begin with. which is why the circumference of the earth is, to use your own exact wording, "just about 40,000km" and they also didn't take into account the flattening of the earth due to its rotation. Since it's only "just about 40,000km", there is no way on this planet that the distance from the pole to the equator can be precisely 10,000,000 meters. Which, when you're talking about a system of -measurement- certainly ought to be taken into consideration, don't you think? But no! The metric system is, in reality, based upon a couple of scratches on a metal bar by some folks that -thought- they knew what they were doing. Nothing more. Quote b. a meter is 1/10mill the distance between a pole and the equator No. It's not. http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html Now . . . go make a bar bet with your fellow professionals.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #21 April 11, 2005 Though the current definition is more precise, he was accurate in correcting me. But it doesn't really chance my (and your) point that it's an arbitrary constant. I'm not going to side with you that SI is no better, but no one else here seems willing to come up with a non stupid example of why. Converting micro to nano grams?! For the vast majority, what you're used to works fine, and that's why we just don't care that much about converting over full time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #22 April 11, 2005 But you and quade are still ignoring the argument that in the metric system, the units for distance, volume and mass are all interconnected. That is NOT true of the Imperial system. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #23 April 11, 2005 QuoteI'm not going to side with you that SI is no better, but no one else here seems willing to come up with a non stupid example of why. Converting micro to nano grams?! WTF? Ok, can you convert feet to inches, or miles to yards, simply by moving a decimal point???? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #24 April 11, 2005 Wow, people sure seem to be getting worked up about this. ANY measuring system is an artifice that we adopt to make math (and thus engineering and science) easier to do. We could measure everything in Planck wavelenghts; that might be more 'real' or something but it would be a pain in the butt. We could measure everything with our own feet, but then nothing would fit and bridges would fall down. MKS units make it easier to do the math. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #25 April 11, 2005 Bill, Bill, Bill . . . Worked up? Heck no! For me it's just one of those things that people -think- they know, but in fact don't. Makes for a GREAT bar bet against engineers and, it appears, cartographers. (of all people!) Now, anybody wanna bet me who cut Samson's hair? quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 1 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kelpdiver 2 #5 April 9, 2005 Quotedo those who use the impereal system think it is easy to use? with the imperial system there doesn't seem to be any trends, maybe there are and i just don't know about them? Farenheit has 100F as the body temp, 0 as the freezing point of salt water. More or less. Just as the meter is 1/ten millionth the circumfrence of the earth. If you're doing physic homework, you're much happier in metric. But in every day life, does it really make a difference? Or really that hard to use both systems as more convenient? Miles versus kilometers? No difference - whatever you're used to. Same for F versus C. Using celcius means using decimals, or rougher approximations. Have to convert to Kelvin for most physics. Feet versus meters - same. It's pretty rare that the things you measure in this you want to use the bigger units for. Calories versus KJ? No difference. KCals are more simply defined, both are actual metric. Kilograms versus pounds. Though it's much easier to convert between volume of liquids to mass/weight for water like substances, not all that useful to most. ml-l versus ounce/cup/quart/etc. Pretty clear win for the metric side. miles per gallon versus liters per 100km? Since you're using solving for fuel needed, mpg is much more helpful. l/100km seems like the work of a total asshole. Let's make everyone do two calculations instead of one! Now for skydiving, we might expect metric to be more useful given that feet and mph are a bit funky, but since we deal in per hour instead of per second, that nasty 3600 gets in the way. Easy enough to know that 1000ft ~= 5.5 seconds. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hungarianchick 0 #6 April 9, 2005 I grew up with metric in Europe. It made sense and was easy to work with since the exchange rates between the units of measurement are divisible by 10. 1km=1000m 1m=1000mm=100cm=10dm and so on The temperature was certainly the hardest for me to figure out when I moved to the UK and US. "I love cooking with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #7 April 9, 2005 QuoteFeet versus meters - same. It's pretty rare that the things you measure in this you want to use the bigger units for. Kilograms versus pounds. Though it's much easier to convert between volume of liquids to mass/weight for water like substances, not all that useful to most. this is what i'm wondering. if you have driven half a mile how many feet is that? 1/2 km = 500m half of that again is 250m easy right how many feet in a mile exactly? the point i am getting at is that it must be hard to fathom the size and volume of things of you cant break the volumes down to something you can understand. example: if someone says there are 120 cubic metres of water in that swimming pool then i instantly know there are 120 tonnes of water in that swimming pool.(handy if you are an archetect) i want to know if you use the imperial system all your life can you make these sort of calculations without using a calculator? also i thoght the metre is from water as 'well' (no pun intended). 1cubic cm= 1 gram of water etc. where does the earths circumfrence come into it? that interests me"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites justinb138 0 #8 April 9, 2005 Quote this is what i'm wondering. if you have driven half a mile how many feet is that? 2640ft. Quote how many feet in a mile exactly? 5280ft. Quote the point i am getting at is that it must be hard to fathom the size and volume of things of you cant break the volumes down to something you can understand. Eh, I think it just depends on what you're used to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jimbarry 0 #9 April 9, 2005 QuoteJust as the meter is 1/ten millionth the circumfrence of the earth. On the planet I'm from, a meter is 1/ten millionth the distance between a pole and the equator. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andrewwhyte 1 #10 April 10, 2005 When dealing in large volumes of water, the Americans use acre-feet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #11 April 10, 2005 I am an American scientist, so I am more comfortable with the metric system. one cubic centimeter = one millliter. One milliliter weighs one gram. Everything is interconnected & is done in the power of ten. It all makes sense, unlike the "english" system which is all based on arbitrary crap like the length of Charlemagnes' foot and whatever. I say, lets all just switch to the metric system once & for all & be done with it. I am 175 cm and 69 kg, and I can deal with that. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #12 April 10, 2005 Quote It all makes sense, unlike the "english" system which is all based on arbitrary crap like the length of Charlemagnes' foot and whatever. You're absolutely right! It's not arbitary at all! No! It's a based on what some French guys -thought- was a correct measurement of the planet and then scratched into a metal bar! The problems only -start- there because guess what -- they were wrong! And what's so "special" about THIS puny little planet anyway? Lemme tell you something magical. It's ABSOLUTELY as arbitrary as any other system. There is NOTHING special about the metric system basic units of measurement for; length, weight, temperature . . . anything! Anyone that says otherwise really hasn't thought about it. Why would the weight of -water- be any less arbitrary than the weight of say . . . hydrogen or carbon? It's not!quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #13 April 10, 2005 Quote On the planet I'm from, a meter is 1/ten millionth the distance between a pole and the equator. No. It's not! Seriously! Look it up!quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #14 April 10, 2005 Quote this is what i'm wondering. if you have driven half a mile how many feet is that? 1/2 km = 500m half of that again is 250m easy right You've driven half a mile. Why did you want to convert to feet? Though any track guy can tell you it's ~800m too. Quote example: if someone says there are 120 cubic metres of water in that swimming pool then i instantly know there are 120 tonnes of water in that swimming pool.(handy if you are an archetect) i want to know if you use the imperial system all your life can you make these sort of calculations without using a calculator? Most of the ones that matter. How often does one need to know how much water is in their pool? That's why there really no big rush to convert in this country. Little to be gained for the effort. Cooking would benefit - teaspoons, tablespoons, then ounces? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #15 April 10, 2005 QuoteLemme tell you something magical. It's ABSOLUTELY as arbitrary as any other system. There is NOTHING special about the metric system basic units of measurement for; length, weight, temperature . . . anything! Anyone that says otherwise really hasn't thought about it. Why would the weight of -water- be any less arbitrary than the weight of say . . . hydrogen or carbon? It's not! Water = universal solvent. The advantage of the metric system is that weight, distance, volume and temperature are all interconnected. 1 cubic centimeter = 1 milliliter. And one milliliter of water weighs one gram. Water freezes at 0 degrees and boils at 100 degrees. In the English system, distance, volume and mass are not interconnected. And also everything in metric is based on ten. It makes it real easy in the lab when I want to convert nanograms to micrograms, for example. Just move the decimal point three places over. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #16 April 10, 2005 Quote Water = universal solvent. The "universal solvent" argument is as arbitary as anything. Hydrogen = most abundant thing in the universe (that we know of). Hydrogen = first element Say that you like the metric system because you happen to like it and I'll accept that. Say it's somehow superior because of it's -design- and we'll simply have to disagree. The metric system -is- a kludged together system designed by a couple of French guys -- nothing more.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhys 0 #17 April 10, 2005 dude you don't make sense. hydrogen yeah we can all see feel and ingest that and realise it.not. the metric system makes plenty of sense the imperial system does not. tradition is the only reasson the imperial system is still around. common sense is the reason the metric system was invented. is it not? you obviously do not understand the metric system?"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jimbarry 0 #18 April 10, 2005 QuoteQuote On the planet I'm from, a meter is 1/ten millionth the distance between a pole and the equator. No. It's not! Seriously! Look it up! Huh? You're kidding... Here's the deal (google it if you want): a. the circumference of the earth is just about 40,000km b. a meter is 1/10mill the distance between a pole and the equator This supports the history of how the meter came about: take the distance between a pole and the equator and divide by 10 million. (Not to mention making maps is my profession.) If you still don't agree, please post a source. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #19 April 10, 2005 The SI system based on meters, kilograms, and seconds is a RATIONALIZED system, meaning that when you plug the numbers in SI into a physics (or chemistry) equation, the answer always comes out in the correct SI unit without any wierd conversion factors. This is not true of Imperial. That alone is sufficient justification for using it (SI) in any branch of science or engineering. I'd like to see someone calculate the Fermi energy of a metal crystal using only Imperial units, or the density of states at the band edge of a semiconductor. Or how about the power input to an electric motor from its current and emf, using only Imperial units. What, for that matter, ARE the Imperial units of current and emf?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #20 April 11, 2005 Bwahahaha. Quote (Not to mention making maps is my profession.) If you still don't agree, please post a source. Man, I LOVE it when somebody says something like that to me! Especially if the person is arguing something from the perspective of being a -professional- in a field. Whatever you do, don't let your boss see this thread! LOL. Do you seriously think I'd speak up about something as seemingly "obvious" as this if I didn't already KNOW the correct answers? Yes, this is what the people that made up the metric system -thought- but unfortunately, they didn't have the measurement -correct- to begin with. which is why the circumference of the earth is, to use your own exact wording, "just about 40,000km" and they also didn't take into account the flattening of the earth due to its rotation. Since it's only "just about 40,000km", there is no way on this planet that the distance from the pole to the equator can be precisely 10,000,000 meters. Which, when you're talking about a system of -measurement- certainly ought to be taken into consideration, don't you think? But no! The metric system is, in reality, based upon a couple of scratches on a metal bar by some folks that -thought- they knew what they were doing. Nothing more. Quote b. a meter is 1/10mill the distance between a pole and the equator No. It's not. http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html Now . . . go make a bar bet with your fellow professionals.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #21 April 11, 2005 Though the current definition is more precise, he was accurate in correcting me. But it doesn't really chance my (and your) point that it's an arbitrary constant. I'm not going to side with you that SI is no better, but no one else here seems willing to come up with a non stupid example of why. Converting micro to nano grams?! For the vast majority, what you're used to works fine, and that's why we just don't care that much about converting over full time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #22 April 11, 2005 But you and quade are still ignoring the argument that in the metric system, the units for distance, volume and mass are all interconnected. That is NOT true of the Imperial system. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #23 April 11, 2005 QuoteI'm not going to side with you that SI is no better, but no one else here seems willing to come up with a non stupid example of why. Converting micro to nano grams?! WTF? Ok, can you convert feet to inches, or miles to yards, simply by moving a decimal point???? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #24 April 11, 2005 Wow, people sure seem to be getting worked up about this. ANY measuring system is an artifice that we adopt to make math (and thus engineering and science) easier to do. We could measure everything in Planck wavelenghts; that might be more 'real' or something but it would be a pain in the butt. We could measure everything with our own feet, but then nothing would fit and bridges would fall down. MKS units make it easier to do the math. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #25 April 11, 2005 Bill, Bill, Bill . . . Worked up? Heck no! For me it's just one of those things that people -think- they know, but in fact don't. Makes for a GREAT bar bet against engineers and, it appears, cartographers. (of all people!) Now, anybody wanna bet me who cut Samson's hair? quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 1 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
justinb138 0 #8 April 9, 2005 Quote this is what i'm wondering. if you have driven half a mile how many feet is that? 2640ft. Quote how many feet in a mile exactly? 5280ft. Quote the point i am getting at is that it must be hard to fathom the size and volume of things of you cant break the volumes down to something you can understand. Eh, I think it just depends on what you're used to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimbarry 0 #9 April 9, 2005 QuoteJust as the meter is 1/ten millionth the circumfrence of the earth. On the planet I'm from, a meter is 1/ten millionth the distance between a pole and the equator. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #10 April 10, 2005 When dealing in large volumes of water, the Americans use acre-feet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #11 April 10, 2005 I am an American scientist, so I am more comfortable with the metric system. one cubic centimeter = one millliter. One milliliter weighs one gram. Everything is interconnected & is done in the power of ten. It all makes sense, unlike the "english" system which is all based on arbitrary crap like the length of Charlemagnes' foot and whatever. I say, lets all just switch to the metric system once & for all & be done with it. I am 175 cm and 69 kg, and I can deal with that. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #12 April 10, 2005 Quote It all makes sense, unlike the "english" system which is all based on arbitrary crap like the length of Charlemagnes' foot and whatever. You're absolutely right! It's not arbitary at all! No! It's a based on what some French guys -thought- was a correct measurement of the planet and then scratched into a metal bar! The problems only -start- there because guess what -- they were wrong! And what's so "special" about THIS puny little planet anyway? Lemme tell you something magical. It's ABSOLUTELY as arbitrary as any other system. There is NOTHING special about the metric system basic units of measurement for; length, weight, temperature . . . anything! Anyone that says otherwise really hasn't thought about it. Why would the weight of -water- be any less arbitrary than the weight of say . . . hydrogen or carbon? It's not!quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #13 April 10, 2005 Quote On the planet I'm from, a meter is 1/ten millionth the distance between a pole and the equator. No. It's not! Seriously! Look it up!quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #14 April 10, 2005 Quote this is what i'm wondering. if you have driven half a mile how many feet is that? 1/2 km = 500m half of that again is 250m easy right You've driven half a mile. Why did you want to convert to feet? Though any track guy can tell you it's ~800m too. Quote example: if someone says there are 120 cubic metres of water in that swimming pool then i instantly know there are 120 tonnes of water in that swimming pool.(handy if you are an archetect) i want to know if you use the imperial system all your life can you make these sort of calculations without using a calculator? Most of the ones that matter. How often does one need to know how much water is in their pool? That's why there really no big rush to convert in this country. Little to be gained for the effort. Cooking would benefit - teaspoons, tablespoons, then ounces? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #15 April 10, 2005 QuoteLemme tell you something magical. It's ABSOLUTELY as arbitrary as any other system. There is NOTHING special about the metric system basic units of measurement for; length, weight, temperature . . . anything! Anyone that says otherwise really hasn't thought about it. Why would the weight of -water- be any less arbitrary than the weight of say . . . hydrogen or carbon? It's not! Water = universal solvent. The advantage of the metric system is that weight, distance, volume and temperature are all interconnected. 1 cubic centimeter = 1 milliliter. And one milliliter of water weighs one gram. Water freezes at 0 degrees and boils at 100 degrees. In the English system, distance, volume and mass are not interconnected. And also everything in metric is based on ten. It makes it real easy in the lab when I want to convert nanograms to micrograms, for example. Just move the decimal point three places over. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #16 April 10, 2005 Quote Water = universal solvent. The "universal solvent" argument is as arbitary as anything. Hydrogen = most abundant thing in the universe (that we know of). Hydrogen = first element Say that you like the metric system because you happen to like it and I'll accept that. Say it's somehow superior because of it's -design- and we'll simply have to disagree. The metric system -is- a kludged together system designed by a couple of French guys -- nothing more.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #17 April 10, 2005 dude you don't make sense. hydrogen yeah we can all see feel and ingest that and realise it.not. the metric system makes plenty of sense the imperial system does not. tradition is the only reasson the imperial system is still around. common sense is the reason the metric system was invented. is it not? you obviously do not understand the metric system?"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimbarry 0 #18 April 10, 2005 QuoteQuote On the planet I'm from, a meter is 1/ten millionth the distance between a pole and the equator. No. It's not! Seriously! Look it up! Huh? You're kidding... Here's the deal (google it if you want): a. the circumference of the earth is just about 40,000km b. a meter is 1/10mill the distance between a pole and the equator This supports the history of how the meter came about: take the distance between a pole and the equator and divide by 10 million. (Not to mention making maps is my profession.) If you still don't agree, please post a source. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #19 April 10, 2005 The SI system based on meters, kilograms, and seconds is a RATIONALIZED system, meaning that when you plug the numbers in SI into a physics (or chemistry) equation, the answer always comes out in the correct SI unit without any wierd conversion factors. This is not true of Imperial. That alone is sufficient justification for using it (SI) in any branch of science or engineering. I'd like to see someone calculate the Fermi energy of a metal crystal using only Imperial units, or the density of states at the band edge of a semiconductor. Or how about the power input to an electric motor from its current and emf, using only Imperial units. What, for that matter, ARE the Imperial units of current and emf?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #20 April 11, 2005 Bwahahaha. Quote (Not to mention making maps is my profession.) If you still don't agree, please post a source. Man, I LOVE it when somebody says something like that to me! Especially if the person is arguing something from the perspective of being a -professional- in a field. Whatever you do, don't let your boss see this thread! LOL. Do you seriously think I'd speak up about something as seemingly "obvious" as this if I didn't already KNOW the correct answers? Yes, this is what the people that made up the metric system -thought- but unfortunately, they didn't have the measurement -correct- to begin with. which is why the circumference of the earth is, to use your own exact wording, "just about 40,000km" and they also didn't take into account the flattening of the earth due to its rotation. Since it's only "just about 40,000km", there is no way on this planet that the distance from the pole to the equator can be precisely 10,000,000 meters. Which, when you're talking about a system of -measurement- certainly ought to be taken into consideration, don't you think? But no! The metric system is, in reality, based upon a couple of scratches on a metal bar by some folks that -thought- they knew what they were doing. Nothing more. Quote b. a meter is 1/10mill the distance between a pole and the equator No. It's not. http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html Now . . . go make a bar bet with your fellow professionals.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #21 April 11, 2005 Though the current definition is more precise, he was accurate in correcting me. But it doesn't really chance my (and your) point that it's an arbitrary constant. I'm not going to side with you that SI is no better, but no one else here seems willing to come up with a non stupid example of why. Converting micro to nano grams?! For the vast majority, what you're used to works fine, and that's why we just don't care that much about converting over full time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #22 April 11, 2005 But you and quade are still ignoring the argument that in the metric system, the units for distance, volume and mass are all interconnected. That is NOT true of the Imperial system. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #23 April 11, 2005 QuoteI'm not going to side with you that SI is no better, but no one else here seems willing to come up with a non stupid example of why. Converting micro to nano grams?! WTF? Ok, can you convert feet to inches, or miles to yards, simply by moving a decimal point???? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #24 April 11, 2005 Wow, people sure seem to be getting worked up about this. ANY measuring system is an artifice that we adopt to make math (and thus engineering and science) easier to do. We could measure everything in Planck wavelenghts; that might be more 'real' or something but it would be a pain in the butt. We could measure everything with our own feet, but then nothing would fit and bridges would fall down. MKS units make it easier to do the math. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #25 April 11, 2005 Bill, Bill, Bill . . . Worked up? Heck no! For me it's just one of those things that people -think- they know, but in fact don't. Makes for a GREAT bar bet against engineers and, it appears, cartographers. (of all people!) Now, anybody wanna bet me who cut Samson's hair? quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
