piahenzi 0 #26 January 6, 2009 ..like I said... it was 7th grade science... :-) Nevertheless, metric is the way to go even if kilogram, liter and meter don't sound as sexy as we'd like. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #27 January 6, 2009 Quote ..like I said... it was 7th grade science... :-) Nevertheless, metric is the way to go even if kilogram, liter and meter don't sound as sexy as we'd like. Metre. It's spelled metre. A meter is a measuring device. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #28 January 6, 2009 QuoteIs calling the engine a 3.0 liter really a reflection of the metric system or just easier than advertising a .7917 gallon engine? 5.7 liter V-8 sounds nicer than 1.5024 gallon V-8. No. Calling an engine 1.5024 gallons would be retarded as engines have never been referred to in that way. Engine cylinder displacement is properly referred to as VOLUME, not a measure of mass.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #29 January 6, 2009 QuoteQuoteIs calling the engine a 3.0 liter really a reflection of the metric system or just easier than advertising a .7917 gallon engine? 5.7 liter V-8 sounds nicer than 1.5024 gallon V-8. No. Calling an engine 1.5024 gallons would be retarded as engines have never been referred to in that way. Referring to an engine in LITERS is also retarded. Engine cylinder displacement is properly referred to as VOLUME, not a measure of mass. Uhhm, Liters(sic) are a measure of volume. GRAMS are a measure of mass. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #30 January 6, 2009 The point I was really getting to was that in the US it's not gallons, but cubic inches.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #31 January 6, 2009 QuoteQuoteIs calling the engine a 3.0 liter really a reflection of the metric system or just easier than advertising a .7917 gallon engine? 5.7 liter V-8 sounds nicer than 1.5024 gallon V-8. No. Calling an engine 1.5024 gallons would be retarded as engines have never been referred to in that way. Engine cylinder displacement is properly referred to as VOLUME, not a measure of mass. A liter is volume. It is 1000 cubic centimetres.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piahenzi 0 #32 January 6, 2009 Quote Quote ..like I said... it was 7th grade science... :-) Nevertheless, metric is the way to go even if kilogram, liter and meter don't sound as sexy as we'd like. Metre. It's spelled metre. A meter is a measuring device. .. are you always this nice or just today?? .... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #33 January 6, 2009 Liters equates to gallons CCs to CIs Even so, 3.0 liters still sounds better than 183.07 cubic inches. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #34 January 6, 2009 Quote Quote ..like I said... it was 7th grade science... :-) Nevertheless, metric is the way to go even if kilogram, liter and meter don't sound as sexy as we'd like. Metre. It's spelled metre. A meter is a measuring device. METER Besides which, it's a bogus and completely arbitrary measurement simply made up by the French.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #35 January 6, 2009 Quote .. are you always this nice or just today?? .... Sorry, that's as good as it gets. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #36 January 6, 2009 What is arbitrary about it?HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #37 January 6, 2009 QuoteWhat is arbitrary about it? I thought it was the kilogram that was arbitrary with the metre being related to the kilogram. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #38 January 6, 2009 Quote It never 'weighs' 1 kg, it masses 1 kg. Weight is a fickle concept that varies with altitude. and yet, the majority of people could go their entire life without worrying about the difference between mass and weight, or the incredibly small variation in g on this earth. And that, geeks, is why the metric system will not take over. While there are some neat applications to 1l of water being 1kg, and 1ml of water being 1g, the utility of this knowledge outside of science is rarely significant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,577 #39 January 6, 2009 QuoteAnd that, geeks, is why the metric system will not take over.And that's a damn shame. Because the metric system is just plain easier. And we Americans tend to like easy. Heck -- we decimalized the money, why not measurements??? 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
Andrewwhyte 1 #40 January 7, 2009 The fact is it already has taken over most of the world. When Rome faded away so did their gods. Dominant powers rarely accept cultural incursions from abroad. As long as the US doesn't need to change they won't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #41 January 7, 2009 Quote Quote yes, but if my 7th grade science serves me, for 1 liter to weight 1 kg, the specific gravity of the liquid has to be 1.0 - higher than that it weighs more than 1 kg. It never 'weighs' 1 kg, it masses 1 kg. Weight is a fickle concept that varies with altitude. No poetry in your soul! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #42 January 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteAnd that, geeks, is why the metric system will not take over.And that's a damn shame. Because the metric system is just plain easier. And we Americans tend to like easy. Heck -- we decimalized the money, why not measurements???. Because it's not easier, Wendy. It's only easy when you're starting from scratch. How many millions of road signs out there have mile indicators on them? What will it cost in time to fix them all? And how will people's lives be improved if the numbers are in km instead of miles? Time still isn't base 10. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #43 January 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote>"A pint's a pound, the world around..." A liter's a kilogram, the world . . . something. That's the whole problem with the metric system. Nothing rhymes with kilogram. When a kilogram's a liter, the math is much neater. yes, but if my 7th grade science serves me, for 1 liter to weight 1 kg, the specific gravity of the liquid has to be 1.0 - higher than that it weighs more than 1 kg. The context was previously stated to be "pure water". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #44 January 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd that, geeks, is why the metric system will not take over.And that's a damn shame. Because the metric system is just plain easier. And we Americans tend to like easy. Heck -- we decimalized the money, why not measurements???. Because it's not easier, Wendy. It's only easy when you're starting from scratch. How many millions of road signs out there have mile indicators on them? What will it cost in time to fix them all? And how will people's lives be improved if the numbers are in km instead of miles? Time still isn't base 10. attoseconds femtoseconds picoseconds nanoseconds microseconds milliseconds seconds Must be base 1000. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #45 January 7, 2009 Quote attoseconds femtoseconds picoseconds nanoseconds microseconds milliseconds seconds Must be base 1000. so where are the kiloseconds? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,098 #46 January 7, 2009 >When someone says pound or mile, we can instantly see that in our head. When someone says meter or kilometer, I can instantly see that in my head too. It all depends on your background. I can tell 40 degrees C from 50C from 60C by my thumb, because that's what we use in electronics design. But I'd have to convert that in my head to degrees F. >It's not technically imperial, but Fahrenheit was designed for cooking because >there's a much wider range available. Not quite. The developer of the scale (Fahrenheit himself) needed a place to call zero, so he measured the coldest stable temperature he could - freezing brine. Next he measured the freezing point of plain water, and next he measured his own body temperature. To make things easier on himself, he drew only three lines on his thermometer initally - so one was at zero, one was 1/3 of the way up the thermometer to body temperature, and the last was body temperature. He drew another line at the 2/3 mark. Then he had to figure out where to draw the remaining lines. He figured the easiest way to do that was to just keep dividing the area between those points by 2 until he had enough resolution. After all, you can do that by just taking a piece of paper, cutting it to length and folding it. He did that and got 2, then 4, then 8, then 16, then 32 lines between zero and the freezing point of water. The same scale put body temperature at 96 degrees. And thus the Fahrenheit scale was born. Not very scientific; more "what's the easiest way to mark lines on this thermometer?" >5.7 liter V-8 sounds nicer than 1.5024 gallon V-8. Well, but likewise, 1.5 gallon V-8 sounds better than 5.67811768 liter V-8. (And neither is 100% accurate, of course; engine manufacturers round up and down like everyone else.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #47 January 7, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Either that or use the Imperial system correctly ... their gallon is the wrong size, for starters. But actually the metric system is way more sensible and should be the universal standard (and I'm from the Foot/Pound/Second generation - but now am enlightened). The U.K is really weird and uses mixed standards - old folks like their Lbs of potatoes, pints of beer and Miles per Gallon. But the length of a Cricket pitch will still need to be a Chain I was just going to say, at least we use one system unlike you chaps across the pond over there... Take a look at the dimensions of any car made in the US in the last 25 years (mine has a "3.0 LITER engine" for example, and all metric nuts and bolts). Then report back. Marketing only...specifications are still noted in cubic inches. Power is measured SAE net bhp...the rims are in inches while the tires are metric/english combo...unfortunately, most people don't know sh*t about tire-sizing standards. Your point does apply in terms of the sale of Soda (2L, 1L, .5L, 12oz) and water and milk (gallon)..etc...So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #48 January 7, 2009 QuoteQuoteWhat is arbitrary about it? I thought it was the kilogram that was arbitrary with the metre being related to the kilogram. Neither is arbitrary. A meter was originally 1/10,000,000 the distance from the north pole to the equator on a line of longitude running through Paris, France. It is now defined as the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second. The gram was originally the weight of 1 cc of pure water, later the term was changed to reflect mass. A kilogram is 1000 grams.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 140 #49 January 7, 2009 what's a small unit for time ? Milisecond what's a small unit for size ? Milimetre what's a small unit for weight ? Miligram what's a small unit for volume ? Mililiter what's a small unit for intelligence ? Military scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #50 January 7, 2009 QuoteNeither is arbitrary. A meter was originally 1/10,000,000 the distance from the north pole to the equator on a line of longitude running through Paris, France. It is now defined as the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second. Uh huh . . . lemme ask you this; what's so "special" about 1/10,000,000th of the distance between the pole and the equator? The real answer; nothing. It's completely arbitrary. AND they didn't even get that right so now it's redefined as some fairly bizarre distance that light travels in a vacuum in some bizarre fraction of a second, but that's also completely arbitrary and is only used so that it closely fits the original concept. The entire metric system is arbitrary. There is no basis for thinking it's superior in any way, shape or form.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
