Missing the point a bit, I think.drthmik said:ar·bi·trar·y
ˈärbiˌtrerē/
adjective
adjective: arbitrary
1.
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
It's never just dividing by 1000, it's dividing by 1000 to get your g/mol into kg/mol, then dividing by 6.02X10^23 to get kg/molecule, than multiplying by 3 constants over pi, and raising the whole thing to the 2/3 power, then using the 1/x function and multiplying that by etta, and finally taking the square root. So yes, I use a calculator to divide by one thousand, because I have enough shit I need to think about when doing my physical chemsitry lab/homework/test without worrying that I might accidentally screw up a simple unit conversion.oliver.begg said:you need a calculator to divide by 1000? okay...spartan231490 said:*Asks question.*
*Pre-rejects most appropriate answer*
The math and the science thing are largely irrelevant, since anyone who does large amounts of math and science knows the metric system. Also, in todays day and age, the math isn't any easier in practice. Sure, it's easier to do in your head, but anyone doing calculations today is using a calculator, and typing in /1000 is no harder than /5280
Personally, I prefer imperial because the units are more workable. I toyed with the idea of forcing my mindset to switch to metric a few years ago, but I find that the units are all either unreasonably small or unreasonably large. Also, I refuse to change my mindset for the convenience of others.
On a large scale, it's still used because they're is no benefit to switching. People who feel the need to use metric are trained to do so, but on an everyday scale, metric and imperial both work just fine. The cost of switching would be enormous: tools, manufacturing equipment, education, road signs, gas tanks, and so much more would need to be converted.
Not to mention one litre = one kilogram of pure water. This means that volume and mass are relatable too therefore densities can be calculated easilyIceForce said:All of these numbers are completely arbitrary.
Metric System:
Number of millimetres to a centimetre?
Number of centimetres to a metre?
Number of millimetres to a metre?
Number of metres to a kilometre?
Number of grams to a kilogram?
Number of millilitres to a litre?
In contrast, all of these numbers are either 10, 100, or 1000. Not arbitrary at all.
THIS is why people are calling the imperial system arbitrary.
Indeed. If they're going to fund a jobs program they might as well fund one that's main focus is on killing people in other countries and getting their own citizens maimed and killed.Full Metal Bolshevik said:I think the main reason US doesn't change to Metric system is because it would cost millions to do so.
Still worth it more than spending it on military though.
Imperial makes less sense with temperature because seemingly important benchmarks like 0 and 100 degrees don't coincide with anything that is relevant to daily life. Whereas having 0 be where water freezes and 100 where it boils makes more sense since water is a pretty standard fluid that everyone uses everyday for a variety of purposes including, but not limited to, making ice and cooking.rudolphna said:I can agree that the metric system is better in almost all things, except temperature. Maybe it's because we are used to it, but if I go outside and it's oven roasting hot, it seems to make more sense to me to say "man, must be at least 100 degrees outside!" than to say "man must be at least 40 degrees outside!" etc
If you look up, you'll notice the point sailing past your head.drthmik said:ar·bi·trar·y
ˈärbiˌtrerē/
adjective
adjective: arbitrary
1.
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
Why the length of a pendulum swing?
Answer: Some guy in the 1600s thought it would be a good length
Why 1/10,000,000th the distance from the North Pole to the Equator along the meridian line passing through Paris?
why not London or New York?
Why not the circumference of the earth at the 22nd parallel? Or at the equator?
Why not 1/100,000,000th or 1/50,000,000?
Answer: Some guy though it would be a good length
Why the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1 / 299,792,458 of a second?
Why not 1/300,000,000 of a second?
or even 1/299,792,450 of a second?
WHY!?!
W H Y ! ? !
I'll tell you why
Some
guy
thought
it
would
be
a
good
length
And a lot of other people agreed
if they had not the meter would have vanished having never seen the light of day
You would say that he (and they) had good reasons to do it the way they did
well guess what
some guy thought a foot would be a good length
his reason was that there were too many different lengths and it was too ARBITRARY so he standardized it so that when one person said foot everyone knew what he meant
it helped trade
and map making
and Law
and construction
and many other things
Standardized Measurements are not universal truths no matter how you come up with them
they are practical language and culture
they exist to service understanding
and changing them all for no better reason than a bunch of guys in lab coats(who use the other system ANYWAY) find it EASIER is not a reason to confuse the language of a people for decades
It's not the length of the swing, it's the length of the pendulum. It doesn't matter so long as the period is the same.drthmik said:Exactly my pointtalideon said:Because then you'd be changing the physical length of a metre from existing standard measurement.drthmik said:Why the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1 / 299,792,458 of a second?
Why not 1/300,000,000 of a second?
or even 1/299,792,450 of a second?
WHY!?!
I've seen pendulums that swing further than a meter
and ones that swing less than a meter
Yes, they can. That's why a more reliable mechanism was ultimately chosen, but the original pendulum measurement gave the initial measurement.drthmik said:and pendulums swing at different speeds in different places
Because he was proposing what's referred to as a 'seconds pendulum', which is an important kind of pendulum, as it's used in clocks, thus tying the measurement of time to that of length. Also, it was a 1/2 period, which is one swing. But even that doesn't matter: having a reliable derivation mechanism is what mattered.drthmik said:why a 1/2 swing of 1 second and not a full swing of 1 second?
No. It comes down to this: the metre was intended to be derived from natural phenomena; the foot, on the other hand, was not. The actual *mechanism* used to find that can be wholly arbitrary just so long as the procedure for deriving it yields consistent results: the mechanism can be arbitrary without the measure being arbitrary.drthmik said:all your "reasons" are BS invented after the fact to justify the length of your stick
Our "reasons" are just as BS but we don't care
Have some Numberphile for the actual facts about this.blackrave said:O_OBigTuk said:Actually the reason is simple. There'd be too much resistance because the imperial system is so ingrained not just in american culture but in thought patterns. That and you'd have to get 50 states to agree on that and we know how impossible that will be.. so long as texas is texas. Remember we're talking about the country actually tried to have Pi legally redefined as 3.2 and got a surprisingly far way along with that plan.
WHAT!?
I just..
What???
Why?
No, really, why?
You can redefine anything, but it won't change the reality.
Fuck, while they are at it, they should redefine Earth gravity constant to 10 m/ss, it would make calculations super easy
And when bad things will happen due to wrong results, they can always blame witchcraft.
Thank you, apparently it wasn't stupidity, but rather incompetence (both mathematical and political)Quaxar said:Have some Numberphile for the actual facts about this.
<youtube=bFNjA9LOPsg>
Umm no. It's a scientific calculation. The length of a meter is the length of a non-elastic string where a 1kg mass can swing from a 45 degree angle to straight down in one second. There is no guesswork or "I like it like that" behind it. Contrast to the foot which, prior to the metric system, fluctuated between people. One is scientific experimentation (and calibrated annualy) and one is "because it's my foot".drthmik said:Why the length of a pendulum swing?
Answer: Some guy in the 1600s thought it would be a good length
All of those are referential definitions. The length of all of those you mention are defined by reverse engineering (a meter in reference to light speed for example is the reverse formula for calculating a light year as an example.) Though such definitions MAY (and I stress the may) be used for formulaic work in scientific research, they are not the proper definition as defined by scientific discovery.drthmik said:Why 1/10,000,000th the distance from the North Pole to the Equator along the meridian line passing through Paris?
why not London or New York?
Why not the circumference of the earth at the 22nd parallel? Or at the equator?
Why not 1/100,000,000th or 1/50,000,000?
Answer: Some guy though it would be a good length
Why the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1 / 299,792,458 of a second?
Why not 1/300,000,000 of a second?
or even 1/299,792,450 of a second?
Those "lot of people" you mention were the scientists of the age who created a system based off scientific research and experimentation that would not fluctuate. This became the scientific standard BECAUSE it was unwavering and could be measured consistently.drthmik said:WHY!?!
W H Y ! ? !
I'll tell you why
Some
guy
thought
it
would
be
a
good
length
And a lot of other people agreed
if they had not the meter would have vanished having never seen the light of day
Go find someone who wears a size 5 shoe and someone who wears a size 12. Now tell me that those are the exact same length. Not going to happen.drthmik said:You would say that he (and they) had good reasons to do it the way they did
well guess what
some guy thought a foot would be a good length
his reason was that there were too many different lengths and it was too ARBITRARY so he standardized it so that when one person said foot everyone knew what he meant
it helped trade
and map making
and Law
and construction
and many other things
Standardized measurement ARE universal truths because they do not change. In fact, the current Imperial standards are even based on the metric system, otherwise they would change between person to person. Prior to the SI system, there was no method of accurate and consistent measurement. A measurement was decided through tradition (usually based around a royal figure, hence the term "Imperial") and only maintained through that tradition. When tradition changes, so does the measurement. the SI system is based on scientific research and experimentation and does not change unless the laws of physics themselves change.drthmik said:Standardized Measurements are not universal truths no matter how you come up with them
they are practical language and culture
they exist to service understanding
and changing them all for no better reason than a bunch of guys in lab coats(who use the other system ANYWAY) find it EASIER is not a reason to confuse the language of a people for decades
Yes it does. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_%28mass%29]Heronblade said:Actually, it does not.Maze1125 said:You only imagine it's easier because it's got the same name as the unit of mass
The one that offers small medium and large but then is willing to break each of those up into categories of 10 if I want, and then those into even further categories of 10 until I am satisfied. Rather than the one that offers size 1 to 14 but refuses to categorise any more precisely when asked.Callate said:To put it still another way- if you're looking for shoes that fit, would you rather go to a shoe store that offers small, medium, and large, or sizes one through fourteen?
Having a sensible way of writing the date down doesn't preclude you from saying it how ever you want.kiri2tsubasa said:I'm sorry but I will NEVER accept the day month year system that the Europeans use. It makes no fucking sense at all. Seriously how does it make more sense to say "It is the 2nd of July 1998" as opposed to "It is July 2nd 1998"? Seriously explain that! Takes more time to say the d/m/y system.