The time warp we have, vice the time warp we would expect

[septemberWaves]

16 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Meanwhile, traditional human-based systems may go out of fashion, but they do not go out of date.

This is so laughable, the length of an inch was originally defined as the length of three grains of barley. Any measurement system that is based on organic measurements is not only impossible to accurately define even when it's created, but its meaning will deteriorate and move away from the original size of the measurement as evolution happens. The length of three grains of modern barley is definitely not the same as any other three grains of modern barley, let alone the original three barley grains that defined the first inch.

Metric is based on two concepts: the concept of a sensible logarithmic scaling system, and the idea of using physical constants to define measurements as opposed to the widely varying and ultimately random sources of imperial measurements. This is why the imperial system is becoming out of date. The words used by the imperial system are more eloquent, but that's about all you can say in its favor.

Edited February 9, 2017 by eloquentJane

[The_Rocketeer]

4 minutes ago, eloquentJane said:

This is so laughable, the length of an inch was originally defined as the length of three grains of barley. Any measurement system that is based on organic measurements is not only impossible to accurately define even when it's created, but its meaning will deteriorate and move away from the original size of the measurement as evolution happens. The length of three grains of modern barley is definitely not the same as any other three grains of modern barley, let alone the original three barley grains that defined the first inch.

Quite right, but this is the whole point - the measurement is on the human scale and will not change rapidly enough to have become seriously altered in a single lifetime. You also (in the sense of being another person who) seem to misconstrue the true purpose of measurement.

[Sharpy]

7 minutes ago, eloquentJane said:

 the length of an inch was originally defined as the length of three grains of barley.

Find the original definition of yard!

[The_Rocketeer]

3 minutes ago, Sharpy said:

Find the original definition of yard!

Try the original definition of second, meter, gram etc. You will find they are quite different from the modern accepted definitions, and that units have been 'adjusted' to make them fit one another correctly.

[septemberWaves]

39 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Try the original definition of second, meter, gram etc. You will find they are quite different from the modern accepted definitions, and that units have been 'adjusted' to make them fit one another correctly.

Fair enough, but the adjustments mean that metric is the basis by which imperial units are defined. An inch now is defined as a specific fraction of a meter, a pound as a specific fraction of a kilogram, etc.

[OrbitalBuzzsaw]

18 hours ago, HebaruSan said:

Sadly, by the time I learned how to use Github, I was no longer able to compile this patched KER:

(Yes, "hhd" stands for hogsheads.)

Tablespoons!? Really?

[HebaruSan]

1 minute ago, OrbitalBuzzsaw said:

Tablespoons!? Really?

Of course not, don't be silly. Those are teaspoons!

[OrbitalBuzzsaw]

Just now, HebaruSan said:

Of course not, don't be silly. Those are teaspoons!

Still.

[natsirt721]

2 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

First off, where did you get your assertion I put in bold from? I don't buy it at all.

According to Merriam-Webster, the meter is "...now defined as 1/299,792,458 of the distance light travels in a vacuum in one second."  I was incorrect about the definition of the second though, according to NIST it is "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom".

2 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

The purpose isn't to know exactly the dimensions of a thing, but to understand its magnitude and relative scale - whether the distance from x to y is larger, smaller or about the same size as y to z. Sure, it's not precise, but it is very relateable. Meanwhile, the mass of a hydrogen atom, or the speed of light, are not relateable to your average person. They may have all kinds of applications to high mathematical science, but not to the average human being, because they have no obvious presence in their everyday sensory experience. Perhaps to an interstellar traveller with no common language hydrogen-mass or lightspeed are more relatable and useful than cubits and stones, but we are hardly at that stage yet.

You don't need units to define relative scale.  If I say from A to B is 9 and from A to C is 12, you know that latter is further.  You don't know whether it's 3 feet further or 3 parsecs further, but it is further.  Magnitude, on the other hand, does require a unit; however every unit has to be learned, and with that comes a knowledge of the magnitude it implies.  Just because it is easier or more relatable to use a cubit doesn't make it a good unit. 

The issue with cubits and stones is that they aren't defined rigorously.  A cubit can be anywhere between 16 and 20 inches, depending on the person.  If you say "this table needs to be 3 cubits wide and 9 long" to 4 different carpenters, you get 4 different tables.  If you say "this table needs to be 1 meter wide and 3 long" you get 4 identical tables (within tolerance).  The necessary tolerance on a cubit is just too large to be of any use, it doesn't matter if it's relatable or not.  Nobody is going to be able to construct anything more complex than simple structures using cubits as base units, unless you use John's cubit or Carl's cubit for every single measurement.  But then, if you want to communicate the dimensions to a friend, you still have to send John or Carl to define the cubit to your friend.  You can't use a unit that isn't precise, it just doesn't work.

[Der Anfang]

21 hours ago, Aperture Science said:

NO.

#MetricMasterRace

#ImperialPeasants

149,600,000 kilometres, anyone?

[The_Rocketeer]

2 hours ago, eloquentJane said:

Fair enough, but the adjustments mean that metric is the basis by which imperial units are defined. An inch now is defined as a specific fraction of a meter, a pound as a specific fraction of a kilogram, etc.

@eloquentJane Again, this argument is reversible. You can define a metric unit with its imperial counterpart too. All that doing so does is establish a ratio, which in imperial units works reasonably easily, but for metric units tends to resolve into an irrational number.

@natsirt721 you're still missing the point. Seeing a cubit as a length on your own body makes it possible for anybody, anywhere to understand how big something is in relation to their own body. Even if the definitive measure of cubits isn't laid down, the concept of a length equivalent to the distance between two points on anybody's person is easy to understand and relate to. This has the same application as knowing roughly how far a day's walking is even though the terrain and distance probably vary drastically, or how long the growing season will be based on the amount of snow that fell last winter. It's not dumb, it's just not precise.

[boccelounge]

8 hours ago, Sharpy said:

But why would you?! You round to the allowed precision and use that.

For carpentry, 1mm is the typical standard, so as 70/3 is 23.333333..., rounding to nearest millimeter, 23.3cm, easy-peasy. And *adding* is easy too. How much is 5-3/7" +  5-2/9" + 2/5" ? When you have the same unit as decimal fraction, it's trivial. If you have two units which differ by the decimal point position, conversion is trivial too. And measuring existing objects is pretty objective. Is your hole 1/5" or is it 5/24"? Guess which fraction was intended?

Well, I was trying to make a simple-but-extreme example (with infinite decimals).  And you have done the same-- there are no useful Imperial measurements in fifths, sevenths, and ninths-- you're just being silly.  

And I wasn't arguing that fractional math is more convenient or accurate than decimal math-- of course it isn't.  But the Imperial fractions of halves, quarters, eighths, sixteenths, etc. do have certain advantages, particularly for craftsmen (and women).  That's the extent of my point.

And as to your point (here and in subsequent posts) on tolerances and precision, it's well-taken.  I run into this literally every day.  Fun fact: plywood is sold in nominal fractions of an inch, but manufactured in millimeters.  For projects requiring very high precision, I frequently have to adjust for the fact the plywood is slightly less thick than it claims to be...

 

8 hours ago, Sharpy said:

Nevertheless, in rocket science the only remaining part involving carpentry is ignitors for Soyuz rocket, and these are metric too

Nice...  too bad I can't give you another "like."  Thanks for the discussion-- cheers.

[natsirt721]

45 minutes ago, The_Rocketeer said:

you're still missing the point. Seeing a cubit as a length on your own body makes it possible for anybody, anywhere to understand how big something is in relation to their own body. Even if the definitive measure of cubits isn't laid down, the concept of a length equivalent to the distance between two points on anybody's person is easy to understand and relate to. This has the same application as knowing roughly how far a day's walking is even though the terrain and distance probably vary drastically, or how long the growing season will be based on the amount of snow that fell last winter. It's not dumb, it's just not precise.

Ok sure, a cubit is good for knowing approximately how large something is. I can say that my legs are about a meter long - easy to relate to and see, but no better than the cubit for precision.  I'm saying you can't base a system of measurement on approximations.  Its good enough for technology up to the 18c but no further.  And even if society (d)evolves, people are going to keep using the units they know.  Why reinvent a whole system of units that you are then going to have to proliferate in order to use? 

[septemberWaves]

1 hour ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Again, this argument is reversible. You can define a metric unit with its imperial counterpart too.

It's the official definitions I'm talking about. Metric units are the ones that are directly defined by physical constants as an official basis for the unit.

[The_Rocketeer]

Just now, eloquentJane said:

It's the official definitions I'm talking about. Metric units are the ones that are directly defined by physical constants as an official basis for the unit.

Which office would be officiating on this? If I open an office and make a insubstantiated claim, technically it's official. Being official is not the same as being correct, nor even the same as being universally accepted. If an encyclopoedia defines a weight or measure using a metric version of the same weight or measure, I say that's a pretty poor sort of encyclopoedia.
 

25 minutes ago, natsirt721 said:

Why reinvent a whole system of units that you are then going to have to proliferate in order to use? 

It seems you still don't know your history. Why indeed, yet that is exactly what happened with the metric system. Nobody used it anywhere and then it became the system of European science.

Anyway, that's enough of this nonsense. For the record, I don't say imperial is superior to metric, I simply contend that metric is not superior in all instances either. Systems were created to suit the needs of those creating them. People had new needs, so they made a new system, but having a new system does not make the old system stupid, hopeless or foolish. For the needs of craftsmen in the US, clearly the imperial system still suits their needs better than the metric.

[septemberWaves]

Okay, but I think we're missing the reasons why metric actually is superior; I've described them below but they can basically be summed up as the fact that the metric system is relatively simple and consistent where the imperial system is not.

• The metric system uses an identical series of prefixes for every type of measurement, and every base unit (except for the kilogram) is the one that lacks a prefix. Temporal measurements are the only real exception to this, but when you're measuring lengths of time greater than a second the SI prefixes stop making sense to use because they no longer fit with days and years. The imperial system however uses different names for almost every unit.
• The imperial system increments by random values which are different for almost every conversion between units. The metric system, by comparison, increments on a logarithmic scale.
• Both of the above points make the metric system significantly simpler to learn and use, as there are far fewer terms to memorize and basically no effort is needed to learn the conversion rates between different scales of the same type of measurement.

[Sharpy]

5 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Try the original definition of second, meter, gram etc. You will find they are quite different from the modern accepted definitions, and that units have been 'adjusted' to make them fit one another correctly.

IIRC...

Second: 1/60th of minute; minute: 1/60th of hour; hour: 1/24th of Earth synodic day.

kilogram: arbitrarily chosen 'standard' object. Most other units are bound to this.

meter: length of edge of cube of water of 1000kg. Precise conditions of the water (temperature, pressure, purity) were not defined, leading to replacement of definition.

 

Yard: distance from king's nose tip to the end of his outstretched hand. Angle between hand and body not defined.

 

My one regret with the metric system: that Kilogram wasn't redefined to mass with weight of 10 newtons sharp. 9.81, dammit.

Edited February 9, 2017 by Sharpy

[stibbons]

14 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

Fixed that for you. By which I mean, this argument is totally reversible.

Then you may as well use the system that, you know, makes sense.

[OHara]

The advantages of familiarity or simplicity, of one system of units over another, is minor compared to the frustration of converting.   Where I work in the US, we manufacture products in metric dimensions so we can ship and service and repair worldwide, but use tools built largely to US/Imperial dimensions limited by what is available.  We need many tools in more sizes to cover the two systems, but we cope.   Change comes slowly, when new parts come that no longer need compatibility -- like the spacing of contacts on integrated circuits, once 0.1-inch and now 0.65mm or 0.5mm.

It seems to me wisest to embrace the system commonly in use, in whatever field I work in.  Commercial aviation universally communicates altitudes in feet, 30 quarts of water fills a cubic-foot container where I live, but space and science in general use metric.  A mod like Speed-Unit Changer is nice for a game, but learning a new measurement system that is commonly-used in a new field, is probably better practice for real life.

13 hours ago, eloquentJane said:

Pubs probably still use pints because "pint glass" sounds better than "568 milliliter glass"

If you come to the US, though, be prepared to ask for 20-ounces so you are not disappointed with our 16-ounce pints. (Also the US ounces are slightly different to UK, but close enough that I don't know which is bigger)

[Sharpy]

3 hours ago, OHara said:

(Also the US ounces are slightly different to UK, but close enough that I don't know which is bigger)

1 oz in gram = 28.3495

1 fl oz in ml = 29.5735

makes me sick.

[MinimalMinmus]

Ah, the old imperial vs metric thing.

As a frenchman, I only have to say: metric system is rather easy to rember too in term of approximate lengh!

Example:  meters

1 meter: from the ground to my non-raised hand.

1 kilometer: 20 minutes while walking, 30 seconds on the highway.

1 megameter: France north to south

1 gigameter: earth to moon 3×

1 terameter: from the sun to halfways between jupiter and saturn.

Now for the small ones:

1 decimeter: the lengh of my middle finger (I mean no offense right?)

1 centimeter: my thumb nail

1 millimeter: the width of an ant

1 micrometer: a bacteria

1 nanometer: a molecule

And so one for other scales

Edited February 10, 2017 by MinimalMinmus

[Nathair]

19 hours ago, boccelounge said:

But the Imperial fractions of halves, quarters, eighths, sixteenths, etc. do have certain advantages, particularly for craftsmen (and women).  That's the extent of my point.

My tape measure allows accuracy of 1/10cm, which is 1/25th of an inch... and I use the term "accuracy" loosely because my "skill" level never gets to such fine detail. Within a 25th of an inch is Good Enough for any project of mine!

If there are actually some inherent advantages to cutting stock to 8 1/2 inches rather than 21.6 centimetres I'm just not seeing them.

[septemberWaves]

11 hours ago, Sharpy said:

1 oz in gram = 28.3495

1 fl oz in ml = 29.5735

Those aren't even US ounces vs other ounces. One is for mass and the other is, strangely, for volume.

And using the conversion rates to compare the two measurement systems is ridiculous; I could say that imperial is bad because one kilogram is 35.2739619 ounces, but that's not much of an argument.

[FleshJeb]

I'm a complete savage, I use decimal US Survey Feet--Where a Survey Foot is defined as 1200/3937 meters. (An International Foot is 0.999998000004 Survey Feet)

If any contractors are confused, I just tell them that 0.01 feet ~ 1/8 inch.