How to get the metric system reinvented

chrisd wrote:

captinjoehenry wrote:I am thinking about introducing the earth metric system as is mostly just because i personally greatly prefer the metric system and it makes life easier for measurements so basicly the metric system as it is today

Please don't.

The metric system is yet another of those, superficially appealing, brainstorms that tend to arise in France, Others are V.A.T. and the €uro.

Imperial/U measurement systems have evolved through time and are "Anthropometric", (I.e. related to the human body) and, though arbitrary, have been standardised for some time, including their differences.

The metric system is claimed to be "rational", grew out of the French Revolution and has an incorrect measurement lying at its core.

So, do you prefer something that is merely Arbitrary, or a "Revolting French Cock-up"?

Today in the age of the computer-everywhere, metric or imperial doesnt matter anymore. But on Safehold, a metric-ish system (not necessarily the earth metric system, any system based on lots of 10s would do. Take the yard as the new meter and divide/multiply by 10 if you want to) would make life nearly as much easier as the the introduction of arabic numbers did.
Calculating in imperial is incredible convulted to do by hand, and Safehold still has a way to go till their mobile phones include calculators

This may be related to my screen name but an errant thought.

Is it really a bad thing that ordinary people need to think when using a measurement system in their daily lives?

Instead of adding, a wrench size based on fractions is a not necessarily a bad thing for teaching math as an example.

I must have read this concept somewhere that I don't remember.

Something to think about,
T2M

I can do that kind of figuring in my head to as many significant places as needed. Do you really mean that you cannot? But I was brought up on the old English currency and had to learn to convert it into decimals, apply a percentage and convert it back again without pencil and paper in the days before even mechanical calculators were more than an expensive luxury.
Cheers
John

Joat42 wrote:[I prefer the metric rational system rather one that incorporates a a hodge-pod of esoteric rules and constants which requires mathematical operations to convert between different measurements which also means you can lose precision or introduce errors in the conversion.

For example, 1 pound is 7000 grains or 16 oz; try to convert 9.3 oz to pounds or grains without resorting to a calculator or pen and paper. In metric you just move the comma around to convert kilograms to any other metric weight. Even though something has evolved over time doesn't mean it's easy or efficient, it's just that it seems easier to use something you are accustomed to.

And just because the basis for the metric system was an incorrect assumption on the size of the earth doesn't mean the system is bad compared to the Imperial system where almost every unit is an arbitrary measurement of something or derived from such.

[quote="John Prigent"But wouldn't they work just as well if expressed as deviations of a yard at 1,000 yards?[/quote]

That's the handy thing about Mils -- 1 unit of deflection at 1000 units distance is the same Mil value. It makes boresighting a sight system for a 15 Mil angle of attack fairly simple.

pokermind wrote:

cadastral wrote:IIRC, the original definition of a meter was to be one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole, which would make it a bit oddly sized for Safehold.

(Also IIRC, when the meter was standardized, and the Earth was measured more precisely, the meter was found to be slightly off in size.)

Another solution would be to convert Safehold to a base 12 numbering system, which would allow the existing foot and inch to function as the basis of a new metric system.

(Although now that I think about it, do we have confirmation that there are 12 Safehold inches in a Safehold foot?)

IIRC it was noted in OAR the old English system was used coming directly from Holy Langhorn

The big problem is different bases, in angles 360 degrees weight 16 oz to the pound, 12 inches to one foot yada yada, time 24 hours to a day 60 minuits to one hour etc remain. You will note the metric system did not introduce metric angles thus even the metric system is a mixed bag of bases. Yep a centiday is 14.4 old time minuites.

Poker

THe metric angle is the grad ... 100 to a right angle.

The firkin-furlong-fortnight system has one mass, one length, and one time, and therefore is rational.

SI units have been thoroughly messed up with other namede units.

Consider the student who dutifully reported torque in Joules (length times force). Now explain why it is right or wrong. It has the correct basic dimensions.

phillies wrote:The firkin-furlong-fortnight system has one mass, one length, and one time, and therefore is rational.

SI units have been thoroughly messed up with other namede units.

Consider the student who dutifully reported torque in Joules (length times force). Now explain why it is right or wrong. It has the correct basic dimensions.

"That poor little firkin's nine gallons in all,
Though the beer it be good, then the size is too small.
For lads that are drinkers, like you and like I,
That firkin small barrel will quickly run dry."

The local pub at the outlaws' is Joules Brewery (The same Joule, as well) so, as all scientists and engineers know, 4.2 Joules = 1 Calorie

Definitely slimming beer!

John Prigent wrote:I have to disagree, Joat. The metric system is a convenience for those who can't calculate in their heads and has no other advantages. To the reverse, it encourages people not to bother to learn how to calculate in their heads - a skill that was widespread with the old currencies in earlier years. Do you really want to have Safeholders unable to add, subtract, multiply and divide before they have any calculators to do it for them?
Cheers
John

So you prefer an illogical and arbitrary system that is prone to introducing conversion errors because you believe a rational system will make people stupid and not able to do math? Please...

And regarding doing the math in your head, can you for example calculate how much 8 cubic inches is in fluid ounces (imperial or us) with a precision of 2 decimals without using a pen or a calculator? Or for that matter, to gallons?

A standardized rational system actually promotes science, whereas an arbitrary system with non-uniform conversion factors hampers progress.

With that said, whether Safehold should convert to metric or not is moot at this point. It may change when the information Owl has can be freely distributed though.

thinkstoomuch wrote:This may be related to my screen name but an errant thought.

Is it really a bad thing that ordinary people need to think when using a measurement system in their daily lives?

Instead of adding, a wrench size based on fractions is a not necessarily a bad thing for teaching math as an example.

I must have read this concept somewhere that I don't remember.

Something to think about,
T2M

The point is that when you need to carefully think about how to convert something you're prone to introduce unintentional errors -- Errare humanum est.

Joat42 wrote:The point is that when you need to carefully think about how to convert something you're prone to introduce unintentional errors -- Errare humanum est.

Actually I am more into promoting thinking than science. Not against science but average person could care less.

Any American scientist functions in the metric system. I have known quite a few despite not even close to being one or even wanting to be one. Want to have fun where does nautical units enter into it. Or for that matter an engineer when one side of the bridge or a steam cylinder (obligatory Safehold content ) is longer than the other. Coefficient of expansion turns all those nice tidy, exact measurements on their heads.

To me you are promoting mob mentality more than science. No need to make people think. If life was meant to be easy babies would not have such a hard time making it work.


When is the last time an average person worried about converting fluid ounces to weight or should that be mass. So weather or not an error gets introduced is immaterial. Scientists don't do that haven't for generations. Average person shrugs and goes on about his way.

As things are not needed they fall out of use naturally. Reason we no longer use rods or furlongs or such

Not trying to be argumentative or anything just pointing out a few things. And probably my last post on the subject.

Enjoy,
T2M

[Edit] If metric system was really necessary to promote science how did The US ever lead the world in anything. Or at least since 1950 or there abouts.