Metric/imperial

[peadar1987]

1 hour ago, Darnok said:

If we are talking about every day common use then metric seems fine.

But in science modified imperial system would be better, because universe doesn't work in 10-based numeric system.

The universe doesn't work in any numeric system, no matter how many times you say things to that effect.

[Kertech]

Metric is an attempt to make a system based upon "natural" scales, so a gram is a mL of water and fills a 1cm sided cube and takes 1 cal to heat it by 1 degree. The interantional standard for a metre is now based on the speed of light (the distance light will go in 1/299 792 458 of a second)

[Darnok]

27 minutes ago, Tex_NL said:

Getting people to change from one system to another is difficult. Very difficult. But geting people to change to a system that is both very similar and at the same time very different is nearly impossible. That way you invite cock-ups. It won't be a matter of if things will go wrong but when.
If you are getting people to change get them to change to the most most logical and widest used system. It will take just as much effort and makes everybody's life (on both sides of the equation) a lot easier.

Concept of 10-based system is not logic based. Also widest used system doesn't mean it is correct system, because making computations on floating numbers you are doing lots of miscalculations, rounding errors etc etc. It is very inaccurate approach.

21 minutes ago, peadar1987 said:

The universe doesn't work in any numeric system, no matter how many times you say things to that effect.

Just because you are so narrow minded you can't see this doesn't mean it isn't there.

Also what is π? Isn't that base system for motion in our universe, since most of things orbits or spins on circular-like paths?

 

[Darnok]

17 minutes ago, Kertech said:

Metric is an attempt to make a system based upon "natural" scales, so a gram is a mL of water and fills a 1cm sided cube and takes 1 cal to heat it by 1 degree. The interantional standard for a metre is now based on the speed of light (the distance light will go in 1/299 792 458 of a second)

Not on natural, but on artificial calculations

1kg=1000g it is our concept, because 1 is shorter than 1000, there is no natural approach in this.

 

As for 1 metre... how much is 1 second? And how it is natural?

[Tex_NL]

3 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Concept of 10-based system is not logic based. Also widest used system doesn't mean it is correct system, because making computations on floating numbers you are doing lots of miscalculations, rounding errors etc etc. It is very inaccurate approach.

That statement is completely bogus. Metric is NOT limited to floating point calculations. It uses fractions exactly the same as imperial.

[peadar1987]

4 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Just because you are so narrow minded you can't see this doesn't mean it isn't there.

Also what is π? Isn't that base system for motion in our universe, since most of things orbits or spins on circular-like paths?

 

No. This is not how a base system works.

[Red Fang]

19 hours ago, Kerbart said:

I'd argue that it's to a large extend semantics. As pointed out above, both systems have advantages and disadvantages. I think that metric is easier in scientific and engineering applications when quantities, expressed as a fraction from each other, don't need arcane conversion factors just because you're switching from inches to feet or from ounces (solid or liquid) to pounds, especially when squares come in place.

For day to day life it doesn't really matter, which is why metric has such a hard time being adopted in the US. There's no real advantage for Joe Average to use centimeters over inches, and switching over is a major inconvenience for 90% of the population. There are long term advantages in science and engineering. But those are things we really don't like that much in the US, as a society. So why bother?

and

28 minutes ago, Tex_NL said:

It probably all comes down to what you've been thought as a child but what you're saying is exactly the opposite of what most believe. Imperial is has no logic. In science an technology metric is king.

And not switching to metric because of American Football as GoSlash is suggesting is complete bolocks of course. Nothing is preventing you from using an antiquated system in sports.

 

I think this personal observation might be relevant.* I make a lot of different things, but I mostly build medieval armour, which involves sheet metalwork, blacksmithing (making tools and some fittings) and some sewing and leather work. I find that using inches is slightly easier when you have to eyeball things, draw patterns cut straps, make buckles, fit things to people etc. Same applies to general blacksmithing and rough woodwork. To go to the extreme, If you use ruler/tape/string for measurement and eyeball Mk1 for precision imperial or similar system kicks ass. If you need calipers do do your measurements and your precision is in the sub mm range, you are better off using metric system (ie. in machining).    

Older systems, such as Imperial were developed to be very practical in certain applications, and units were specialized and scaled properly. Changing scales ended up being... unsystematic. Ie 12" to foot, 3 feet to yard, 2 yards to fathom, god-knows-how-many-whats to a mile.  BTW, which mile? Than you add on top of that units for surface, volume, weight, etc all of which had similar differences, and similar types of specialization. Go to medieval times, and you'll see a terrible mess of physical units being based not only on physical world, but also on social climate: trade, taxes, labor, available measuring tools and very different calculating devices.   

 Then there is the metric system, which is not particularly good on any scale, but is good enough on most scales, and is much more convenient for large-number-crunching. 

*I lived in a metric country all my life, and I mostly think in metric. I've had to learn and get the feel for imperial units 15 years ago, as most armouring books and forums available at the time were heavily using imperial units.  

[Kertech]

5 minutes ago, Darnok said:

As for 1 metre... how much is 1 second? And how it is natural?

The second 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.

 

 

[peadar1987]

6 minutes ago, Tex_NL said:

That statement is completely bogus. Metric is NOT limited to floating point calculations. It uses fractions exactly the same as imperial.

The difference is that at least in metric, the fractions line up with the units and the preferred base system. In imperial, 3.25 yards doesn't convert nicely into either feet or inches if you're using base 10. Or any base for that matter.

[Tex_NL]

12 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Also what is π? Isn't that base system for motion in our universe, since most of things orbits or spins on circular-like paths?

π is a mathematical concept. π is the relation between diameter and circumference in a circle. π is π no matter which system you use. Metric, imperial, it does not matter. Even for an alien civilization π will be exactly the same for them as it is for us.

[Kertech]

as for base 10, it's just a quirk of the number system we use

[peadar1987]

Just now, Kertech said:

as for base 10, it's just a quirk of the number system we use

Yep. We could use any base system (although if the base is too large you end up having too many symbols, and too small and your numbers take a lot of space to write), and so long as you are consistent with it, it works just fine. That is imperial's major downfall, its inconsistency, not its choice of bases.

[p1t1o]

Some miscellaneous points:

Are we starting to confuse "the metric system" with "the system of SI units"?

Is "the metric system" and "the system of SI units" the same thing?

As far as I know, there is no base-X numerical system that gets you out of using "awkward" or irrational numbers.

I reckon we ended up with base-10 because we have 10 fingers.

If you want to "modify" the Imperial system that much, you aren't using Imperial any more, you have a new one.

Edited February 17, 2016 by p1t1o

[Kertech]

As a physician I am so much more comfortable using metric, just because it is easier to convert between units, you don't want to confuse your 1mol/kg dose with a 1mg/dL!

SI is essentially metric, just kelvin instead of celcius (which is just add/subtract 273.15)

[Tex_NL]

12 minutes ago, Red Fang said:

I think this personal observation might be relevant.* I make a lot of different things, but I mostly build medieval armour, which involves sheet metalwork, blacksmithing (making tools and some fittings) and some sewing and leather work. I find that using inches is slightly easier when you have to eyeball things, draw patterns cut straps, make buckles, fit things to people etc. Same applies to general blacksmithing and rough woodwork. To go to the extreme, If you use ruler/tape/string for measurement and eyeball Mk1 for precision imperial or similar system kicks ass. If you need calipers do do your measurements and your precision is in the sub mm range, you are better off using metric system (ie. in machining).    

Older systems, such as Imperial were developed to be very practical in certain applications, and units were specialized and scaled properly. Changing scales ended up being... unsystematic. Ie 12" to foot, 3 feet to yard, 2 yards to fathom, god-knows-how-many-whats to a mile.  BTW, which mile? Than you add on top of that units for surface, volume, weight, etc all of which had similar differences, and similar types of specialization. Go to medieval times, and you'll see a terrible mess of physical units being based not only on physical world, but also on social climate: trade, taxes, labor, available measuring tools and very different calculating devices.   

 Then there is the metric system, which is not particularly good on any scale, but is good enough on most scales, and is much more convenient for large-number-crunching. 

*I lived in a metric country all my life, and I mostly think in metric. I've had to learn and get the feel for imperial units 15 years ago, as most armouring books and forums available at the time were heavily using imperial units.  

Sure. Imperial has its uses. But science is not one of them.

[Red Fang]

8 minutes ago, Tex_NL said:

Sure. Imperial has its uses. But science is not one of them.

Yeap. Science and engineering/machining are much easier in metric. Basically anything that requires precision or work on various scales, such as archaeology (plotting points on a skeleton while excavating a grave, with mm precision, on a site that is tens or hundreds of meters across, kilometers away from referent points on national grid, by using an EDM with an integrated GPS. Work scales: 1:10000:1000000:1000000000), ship building, ballistics... 

[Darnok]

17 minutes ago, Kertech said:

The second 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.

 

 

And how is that natural? Why we not use 9 192 631 771 periods? And why cesium?

[Plusck]

22 minutes ago, Tex_NL said:

π is a mathematical concept. π is the relation between diameter and circumference in a circle. π is π no matter which system you use. Metric, imperial, it does not matter. Even for an alien civilization π will be exactly the same for them as it is for us.

Pretty sure that an alien civilisation would use Tau.

 

 

[Kertech]

3 minutes ago, Darnok said:

And how is that natural? Why we not use 9 192 631 771 periods? And why cesium?

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

as for why caesium, I'm not going to do a physics lesson, but regardless it changes between to energy levels predictably (and it is more constant than doing it by rotation of the earth which does change)

[Darnok]

19 minutes ago, Tex_NL said:

π is a mathematical concept. π is the relation between diameter and circumference in a circle. π is π no matter which system you use. Metric, imperial, it does not matter. Even for an alien civilization π will be exactly the same for them as it is for us.

Exactly It is universal, while our 10-based numbers aren't. That is why metric vs imperial has no sense for me because both are wrong. However what I like in imperial is that it is trying to use different "systems" for different things IMO that is best way to improve scientific calculations, but instead of 10-based numbers we should try to search for different numerical systems... in some cases maybe binary in other π-nary, maybe there would be even case 10-nary system.

 

1 minute ago, Kertech said:

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

as for why caesium, I'm not going to do a physics lesson, but regardless it changes between to energy levels predictably (and it is more constant than doing it by rotation of the earth which does change)

So why 1/86 400 of the mean solar day, why use solar day at all? It is not natural nor universal value... it is local value for our solar system and we are trying to use it to measure entire universe... it is very stupid concept as stupid as geocentric solar system model.

[Tex_NL]

3 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Exactly It is universal, while our 10-based numbers aren't. That is why metric vs imperial has no sense for me because both are wrong. However what I like in imperial is that it is trying to use different "systems" for different things IMO that is best way to improve scientific calculations, but instead of 10-based numbers we should try to search for different numerical systems... in some cases maybe binary in other π-nary, maybe there would be even case 10-nary system.

 

Please do not take my posts out of context. π has NOTHING to do with any discussion between metric or imperial. It is on a completely other level. And I would also very much appreciate you not taking remarks made AGAINST your claim and try to contort them in a remark in favour of it.

Metric might make no sense for you but fortunately the majority of the world does not agree.

[Kertech]

Trust me, metric is better than a Pi based numeral system! That definition of a second is same as the imerial one, the SI one is caesium. Imperial is just a bunch of historical references which make conversion between different ones tricky, and again trust me, you don't want your doctor to be fiddling around with unit conversion when giving you say insulin/morphine etc.

[Hary R]

Another thread about this, another heated debat from both side, another closing coming in.

Seriously, this is a sterile debate not because one or another is the best system, (in fact none is as the universe don't care about metric or imperial so for human observation, both work well it just depend on where you were born), but to the amount of "I don't care about you i'm right your wrong" going on here.

How many thread about this have appeared in this forum? How many time did it devolve to "i'm right your wrong" debate? I say ENOUGH!!!

Edited February 17, 2016 by Hary R

[magnemoe]

21 hours ago, p1t1o said:

Whilst I am a strong metric proponent, its funny how Celcius:Farenheit/Imperial:metric is always is a bit of a debate but when it comes to car engines, the vast majority of us [myself included] would be all like "Welp, clearly we should should be comparing this to a good strong horse!"

Its probably that unlike length, volum and weigh but like voltage or watt its not something you can see. And that its lots of marketing. 
Always boring then your car goes from 100 HP down to 75 kw
Had it been the other way everybody had been happy. 

[Azimech]

Ah, another topic about one's preferred system based primarily on emotion.

Well here's my emotion: I prefer metric for everything except when writing poetry or lyrics.