the imperial/metric system

[shropshire 0]

Hope this helps...

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html

Thus, the meter was intended to equal 10-7 or one ten-millionth of the length of the meridian through Paris from pole to the equator.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[quade 4]

Note the phrasing . . . "was intended" . . . not "is".

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Jim --

Go back to the original post I made in resonse to yours.

You said, ""On the planet I'm from, a meter is 1/ten millionth the distance between a pole and the equator."

My response was;

Quote

"No. It's not!

Seriously!

Look it up!

Then YOU challenged me to refute that with a source, which, by any standard the NIST certainly is a credible one.

It's your phrasing that I objected to. A meter IS NOT what you had said it was.

That's all. The rest was simply window dressing because you pulled the "speaking from authority" tactic and well, that's just too much fun to pass up when it makes the other person look silly.

Sorry if I hurt your feelings. Sorry if you can't let it go.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[shropshire 0]

Yeap... they were short by 0.2 millimeters ... trust the French to cock it up ....

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[IanHarrop 41]

Quote

unless you memorize constants like 55mph = 88fps.

Actually I believe that it is actually 60 mph = 88 fps

For a reference use this http://www.onlineconversion.com/speed_all.htm

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

[kallend 1,882]

Quote

Quote

I repeat my question to you. What is the Imperial unit of magnetic induction? Of luminous intensity? Of inductance? You may not use any SI units in your answer.

Actually you didn't ask any question before. So you can't repeat it. Even then, your question is just a semantics game - that's more BillVon's style.

Here's an exercise for you instead to answer your question - break down your unit of inductance into it's base definition consisting of kg, m, and s (anyone familiar with physics and flight should know the power of dimensional analysis - it's where the aerodynamic equations originated). Then replace kg with slug, m with ft, and s with sec. Name it the "Kallend" There you have your Imp unit equivalent and likely will get a research grant for your efforts.

Unless you want to tell me that imperial units don't have a mass, length or time unit (in fact, they have several which is the problem with imp units).

You have confirmed my statement that the Imperial system has no defined units for certain very important physical quantities, such as magnetic induction. Defining one in terms of MLT still leaves the problem of which M, L and T unit to use in the definition. How about ounces, furlongs and leap-years?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,882]

Quote

Hope this helps...

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html

Thus, the meter was intended to equal 10-7 or one ten-millionth of the length of the meridian through Paris from pole to the equator.

No wonder they got it wrong, then. Everyone knows the origin of space and time for all known intelligent life in the universe is at Greenwich, not Paris.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mr2mk1g 10]

For a short while though it was Paris

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

You have confirmed my statement that the Imperial system has no defined units for certain very important physical quantities, such as magnetic induction. Defining one in terms of MLT still leaves the problem of which M, L and T unit to use in the definition. How about ounces, furlongs and leap-years?

"Rubbish" - I've confirmed nothing of the sort. Just that I think your point is moot and adds no value.

You, however, have confirmed that no one else lives in your Kallend-centric universe. The only important units are m, l, and t - all of which are in all systems and can be used to define all higher order units. You can call a standard defined unit of magnetic induction "Howard" for all I care provided it's the correct combination of mlt units to explain it's behavior and your students handle whatever conversion factors needed to use their canned derivations they are learning.

You also have not showed a flaw in the base units of imperial (e.g., an ancient math form did not have zero. That's a real flaw.) - your only argument is it's not easy or comfortable. So what? Will it work if applied correctly?

Higher order metric "LABELS" are merely arrogant self tributes those people that defined them in the first place (I'm terribly sorry Mr. Faraday, it could just as easily been a "Kallend" in another world and been exactly one 4th of your definition and the only difference would have been a factor of 4).

C'mon John - As you know, physics still works regardless of the basis of measurement (a construct), frame of reference (a construct), units of measurement (a construct), etc. Laws of Nature are independent of artificial human constructs.

And I still agree that metric is much more friendly than the alternatives available today. But, that's not the discussion I've been working here not matter how much you are pretending it is.

Fess up, if YOU did an analysis in imperial, you'd get the right answer, wouldn't you? It might take more "care", but not more thought, just accounting.

Let's not confused 'utility' with science.

...
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

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

No wonder they got it wrong, then. Everyone knows the origin of space and time for all known intelligent life in the universe is at Greenwich, not Paris.

A few here might say Perris, not Paris

...
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

[kallend 1,882]

I was under the impression we were discussing the relative merits of the existing systems, not whether or not the irrational Imperial system could in principle be fixed up to become rational. It certainly could be fixed up, but then it wouldn't be the Imperial system any more. The fix-up would still generate a lot of whining from those who think the nasty furriners are forcing them to change their way of life..

As things stand in April 2005, the Imperial system is quite unsuitable for routine work in physics and much of engineering that involves electronic, magnetic, or quantum calculations, which is why no-one is using it for these things.

In fact I dispute that Imperial units form a system at all. They are just a collection of units.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

No "fix up" needed, it has the necessary basic units needed to do any type of work and can be used if one has an organized mind and remains discipined and is not hung up on the semantics of what to "call" some unit of concept. A rose by any other name, my friend.

I've now 4 times noted that I prefer metric. So the 'relative merits' discussion was settled a long time ago.

I'm only gigging on you saying imperial "won't" work. That's false. It has all the necessary ingredients. You really mean that "you won't work with it". It's a preference that you are trying to pose as a limitation.

I respect your preference and agree with it. I only opposed you overselling your preference by misrepresenting the alternative as incorrect - which is blatantly untrue. Wrong answers come from misapplication or mistakes by the student, the system is not flawed, just unwieldy (I would also say 'pain in the ass' - we have a group here that uses microinches as a standard unit, another group used micrometers, I have to pull their stuff together. We do it fine every day).

In terms of 'metrics' a 'system' is just a "collection of units" - they are all artificial constructs - so who would you be disputing? I agree. So what? It's the application of any system that matters. I believe we'd be able to deal with the advanced physics terms in imperial had metric never been invented. People are that smart. At least enough people are that smart. So it is "suitable".

So, on the basis science? You're avoiding the question.
On the basis of utility? I am 100% on your side.

...
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

[kallend 1,882]

Imperial units do not constitute a rational system. SI units do constitute a rational system. That Imperial could be made to work does not in any way alter the fact that at present and as currently defined, Imperial units do not constitute a rational system.

Doing science or advanced engineering with Imperial units is like using a chisel to drive a screw; it can be done but it's quite inappropriate.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,792]

>Imperial units do not constitute a rational system. SI units do constitute
>a rational system.

They are both equally rational in the two senses of the word I can think of i.e. they are both sane and they can both be used to express both rational and irrational numbers. MKS is often easier to use, which is why most engineers use it.

>Doing science or advanced engineering with Imperial units is like using a
>chisel to drive a screw; it can be done but it's quite inappropriate.

When you work with computer simulations, do you use base 10 or base 16 numbers? Base 10 is wasteful of computer memory and ties up computer resources to do the conversion.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Imperial units do not constitute a rational system. SI units do constitute a rational system. That Imperial could be made to work does not in any way alter the fact that at present and as currently defined, Imperial units do not constitute a rational system.

Doing science or advanced engineering with Imperial units is like using a chisel to drive a screw; it can be done but it's quite inappropriate.

The only definitive statement in that post is "it can be done" which has been my sole point in this conversation. The rest is just opinion with subjective evaluations as "rational" and "inappropriate". However, I agree with those opinions, FWIW.

Are we done yet?

Edit: Wow, Wikipedia has a ton on this. We forgot temperature as the 4th basic unit (they quote 7 in each system, but temperature and 3 of any of the others pretty much covers it - that and dimensionless junk - once electrical current is broken down, that will take us to all the advanced unit definitions in terms of MKT)

...
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

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

For a short while though it was Paris

Which one? Paris H.?

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[mr2mk1g 10]

hehe, no I meant that for a short while, the prime meridian was considered to run through Paris.

Oddly enough, the concession that the world would accept Greenwich as the prime meridian was made in an attempt to get us Brits to use metric instead of our imperial system.

[kallend 1,882]

Quote

>Imperial units do not constitute a rational system. SI units do constitute
>a rational system.

They are both equally rational in the two senses of the word I can think of i.e. they are both sane and they can both be used to express both rational and irrational numbers. MKS is often easier to use, which is why most engineers use it.

>Doing science or advanced engineering with Imperial units is like using a
>chisel to drive a screw; it can be done but it's quite inappropriate.

When you work with computer simulations, do you use base 10 or base 16 numbers? Base 10 is wasteful of computer memory and ties up computer resources to do the conversion.

Within the scientific standards community, a "rational" system of units has a very specific meaning. See, for example:

www.convertit.com/Go/ConvertIt/Reference/AMS55.ASP?Res=150&Page=6

Si is rational by this definition, and Imperial is not.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,792]

>Si is rational by this definition, and Imperial is not.

I read that, and I noted they like basing everything on the base-10 system. Do you use this system or the more sensible base-16 system when using computers for scientific work?

[reverend 0]

It is interesting that you would advocate a base 16 system ' when humans clearly prefer a base 10 system.

Also Kallend, it is interesting that you seem to indicate that high functioning individuals in the modern era are inadequate to function using the Imperial system; even though it has been established for centuries and used to describe some of the most important discoveries of the scientific world.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Also Kallend, it is interesting that you seem to indicate that high functioning individuals in the modern era are inadequate to function using the Imperial system; even though it has been established for centuries and used to describe some of the most important discoveries of the scientific world.

It is more interesting that a man of science insists on taking consensus opinion concerning an arbitrary system for frame of reference and treating it like scientific fact. Then uses subjective arguments to support that position. Very common in the "everybody but us is wrong" world of acedemia dream of a meritocracy. (Gratuitous slam just for emotional effect).

And, again, for the record, I side on the consensus opinion position. Long live the IQ based aristocracy.

I think the base 10 vs base 16 analogy is excellent - one is difficult. But the other one makes a lot more sense intuitively and is accepted as the standard choice.

Wendy's note about the space shuttle being worked fully in imperial units is also interesting, hope they got good schooling somewhere that taught them first principles rather than indoctrinated them only in one language.

I defy you to consider German a language "system" at all.

...
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

[billvon 2,792]

> It is interesting that you would advocate a base 16 system '
>when humans clearly prefer a base 10 system.

I don't. Base 10 is easier for me to use so I use it, even though it is not ideal for use with a computer. Similarly, some people use imperial units because they are easier, even though it is not ideal for physics.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

> It is interesting that you would advocate a base 16 system '
>when humans clearly prefer a base 10 system.

I don't. Base 10 is easier for me to use so I use it, even though it is not ideal for use with a computer. Similarly, some people use imperial units because they are easier, even though it is not ideal for physics.

Imperial units are not easier; they are merely more familiar to some. There is a difference.

[billvon 2,792]

>Imperial units are not easier . . .

It is easier to figure out distances and times while driving in the US using imperial units, since speeds average 50-70 mph and the units are in miles and miles per hour. That's not to say it's the "best" way to do it. But if you have to travel 240 miles on mostly freeways it's easy to figure out that you will be there in about 4 hours. It would be more difficult to figure out how long it would take you to go 400 kilometers at 30m/s. Not unfathomable, just a bit more difficult.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

On the other hand 400km at 100km/hr is the more accurate comparison.