NCclimber 0 #101 June 25, 2007 Quote Quote jakee, please don't dodge Kallend's questions in your next post. Um, I actually agree with Kallend... I think your "So fucking what?" may have thrown some people off... maybe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #102 June 25, 2007 Quote Quote Quote jakee, please don't dodge Kallend's questions in your next post. Um, I actually agree with Kallend... I think your "So fucking what?" may have thrown some people off... maybe. My "So fucking what?" that was in reply to Quade? You really don't have the faintest idea how to follow a chain of replies do you?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #103 June 25, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote jakee, please don't dodge Kallend's questions in your next post. Um, I actually agree with Kallend... I think your "So fucking what?" may have thrown some people off... maybe. My "So fucking what?" that was in reply to Quade? You really don't have the faintest idea how to follow a chain of replies do you? What do you expect of Trolls?... 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
NCclimber 0 #104 June 25, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote jakee, please don't dodge Kallend's questions in your next post. Um, I actually agree with Kallend... I think your "So fucking what?" may have thrown some people off... maybe. My "So fucking what?" that was in reply to Quade? You really don't have the faintest idea how to follow a chain of replies do you? Oops. My mistake. Sorry about that. Why do so many of your posts have a distinctly hostile tone? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #105 June 25, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote jakee, please don't dodge Kallend's questions in your next post. Um, I actually agree with Kallend... I think your "So fucking what?" may have thrown some people off... maybe. My "So fucking what?" that was in reply to Quade? You really don't have the faintest idea how to follow a chain of replies do you? What do you expect of Trolls? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RossDagley 0 #106 June 25, 2007 Quote I got it! I got it! And I didn't even have to Google it! Quote What is the charge on the electron in English units? $1.99/lb How'd I do? Badly - That'd be in American units then Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #107 June 25, 2007 >What do you expect of Trolls? Calling another regular poster a troll is a PA, which shouldn't be hard to figure out. Your one warning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #108 June 25, 2007 QuoteThere are just 7 base units (arbitrary quantities, if you will) in the SI system. Could a system be designed using universal constants? No arbitrary units whatsoever. Would that not be vastly superior?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #109 June 25, 2007 QuoteQuoteThere are just 7 base units (arbitrary quantities, if you will) in the SI system. Could a system be designed using universal constants? No arbitrary units whatsoever. Would that not be vastly superior? Who gives a toss if the units are arbitrary or not? Wouldn't it still be an arbitrary decision to base the units on universal constants?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #110 June 25, 2007 Yes.... Lets's use pie (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #111 June 25, 2007 QuoteQuoteThere are just 7 base units (arbitrary quantities, if you will) in the SI system. Could a system be designed using universal constants? No arbitrary units whatsoever. Would that not be vastly superior? Its a question of balance I think Paul. Universal constants would definitly be more grounded in universal truths, but besides Plank's, what constants? Speed of light? Diameter of an electron? Wavelenght of cosmic rays? The problem then is that most (if mot all) of the universe's dimensions are either way too big or way too small to be relevent to everyday's life. The SI system is the best compromise that we've come up with.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 35 #112 June 25, 2007 Quote >What do you expect of Trolls? Calling another regular poster a troll is a PA, which shouldn't be hard to figure out. Your one warning. So calling a first time poster a troll is okay? "Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #113 June 25, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteThere are just 7 base units (arbitrary quantities, if you will) in the SI system. Could a system be designed using universal constants? No arbitrary units whatsoever. Would that not be vastly superior? Who gives a toss if the units are arbitrary or not? Wouldn't it still be an arbitrary decision to base the units on universal constants? Any way you cut it, measurement is still a human construct. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #114 June 25, 2007 Quote Quote Quote In other words . . . something that is completely arbitrary because it is a circular dependancy. SOooooo...they had to change it...which only points out how arbitrary it was to begin with yet again. So fucking what? If the best objection you have to the SI system is that "it's arbitrary" then you really don't have much of a case, do you? There are just 7 base units (arbitrary quantities, if you will) in the SI system. There are dozens of arbitrary quantities in the Imperial system. How many fathoms in a rod, pole or perch? How many minims in a drachm? How many troy ounces in a hundredweight? How many short tons in a long ton? How many square chains in an acre? I know! 42! The answer is 42! (I saw that in a movie so it HAS to be right.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #115 June 25, 2007 Quote Quote jakee, please don't dodge Kallend's questions in your next post. Um, I actually agree with Kallend, the SI system is superior. But, since you asked... Supplying the link to a calculator / reference defeats the lesson of actually finding the conversions yourself, but since you agree with him... I find google works much better for unit conversion, for example try google searcing "4.5 furlongs in rods" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #116 June 25, 2007 QuoteAny way you cut it, measurement is still a human construct. Maybe, maybe not. There are, in fact, a number of universal things; things that, no matter where you are in the universe, are the same. For instance, the speed of light is a universal constant. Any sufficiently technological civilization would instantly recognize this to be true. Being human has nothing to do with it. I maintain that hydrogen is the universal element. It's certainly the most abundant in the universe and the most simple. Water on the other hand and by comparison is pretty rare stuff.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #117 June 25, 2007 Quote For instance, the speed of light is a universal constant. Any sufficiently technological civilization would instantly recognize this to be true. Being human has nothing to do with it. We'll never achieve warp drive with that sort of attitude. Or do the kessel run in less than 12 parsecs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #118 June 25, 2007 QuoteQuote For instance, the speed of light is a universal constant. Any sufficiently technological civilization would instantly recognize this to be true. Being human has nothing to do with it. We'll never achieve warp drive with that sort of attitude. Or do the kessel run in less than 12 parsecs. that was an odd quote - a parsec is a distance, right? but it was delivered in terms of quickness. being the nerd I am, I just rationalized that Lucas meant that exactly, and it meant that Han could jump closer to his target than most - being the reckless scruffy hair nerf herder that he is ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Calvin19 0 #119 February 27, 2011 Quote Quote Or do the kessel run in less than 12 parsecs. that was an odd quote - a parsec is a distance, right? but it was delivered in terms of quickness. being the nerd I am, I just rationalized that Lucas meant that exactly, and it meant that Han could jump closer to his target than most - being the reckless scruffy hair nerf herder that he is That is what I took from it also. Any kind of >C travel would involve space manipulation and distance would be the prime measurement of efficiency, not time. BACK ON TOPIC. Metric system>imperial system. End of argument. Attached is a pic of my Alti. -SPACE- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #120 February 27, 2011 Wow ... you're tall (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #121 February 27, 2011 Quote BACK ON TOPIC. Metric system>imperial system. End of argument. Attached is a pic of my Alti. How do you figure that metric is "better" than imperial when it comes to skydiving altimeters? Seriously. The units are actually irrelevant as long as you know how many units mean "I got my money's worth of altitude so I should exit", "um, I guess I really ought to think about pulling now" and "fuck, there really needs to be a canopy over my head now!"quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #122 February 27, 2011 Wow, a thread returns after 3 years and 8 months (not metric units of time).... 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
lawrocket 3 #123 February 27, 2011 Damn! That's about 47 moons! My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Calvin19 0 #124 February 28, 2011 Quote Quote BACK ON TOPIC. Metric system>imperial system. End of argument. Attached is a pic of my Alti. Seriously. The units are actually irrelevant as long as you know how many units mean "I got my money's worth of altitude so I should exit", "um, I guess I really ought to think about pulling now" and "fuck, there really needs to be a canopy over my head now!" I agree with you that for a quick view of things, the unit is irrelevant. I understand that argument. 1000m is about 3300', it is splitting hairs to argue that it matters. HOWEVER. Most of the world uses Metric. (around 95% of the humans on earth). That alone is a good enough reason. If the entire world was using the US/imperial system I would say that we all should use the US/imperial system. I agree with you that 1ml=1cm^3, etc. is a rare thing that would come in handy. My position is more we should all use the same thing than it is the metric system is better. Again, you are correct. the ground is the ground. Zero = Zero in metric and most other forms of measure. as for my alti, Were I to be on a group skydive, I would use my digital alti (not the metric one). The conversions cannot happen fast enough in my headFurther, I bought that alti mostly because I think it is a very attractive instrument, and km is WAY cooler than feet. -SPACE- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #125 February 28, 2011 My Dad had a Peter Meter. 1 inch = Just a water spout. Shoulda been a girl. . . . 10 inches = For large girls and small cattle. . . 12 inches = For barroom betting only.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
