Metric system of measurements

Joat42 wrote:

phillies wrote:"... how many inches are there in 1.3 miles?..."

Let us know the first time you encounter this question outside this class of debates, and why it mattered.

I'll will do that when you let me know that a similar type of conversion have never been done in a real-life situation.

phillies wrote:"What is the mass of a volume 2.57 x 3.14 x 87.6 meters of liquid mercury?" Without a calculator and a copy of the CRC tables, please.

You missed something important, my question contained ALL the relevant information to be easily solved in metric by just multiplying 4 numbers. If you want to refute what I said it's a bad sign that you both remove and "obfuscate" information as a gotcha. For the question to be equal in the context of comparing imperial to metric is should have been: What's the mass of a volume 10x10x10 cm of mercury liquid having a density of 13.534 g/cm³? To get the answer, move the decimal-comma right 3 times and you get 13.534 kg. No conversions, no precision-loss, no tables, no memorized constants.

A kilogram is an arbitrary mass. A meter is an arbitrary length. Any useful calculation in the metric system will inlcude arbitrary numbers that either have to be remembered or looked up. That is why I believe that the additional numbers (I believe that I can get by with 6 or so) that the Imperial system entails are not a critical impairment.

it is Telling that only 3 countries still use imperial measures.

3)Myanmar (Burma)
2)Liberia (founded by no 1)
1)USA

Even in the US almost all science is done in Metric and more and more engineering is also done in metric with civil Engineering and Aerospace being the biggest areas where they still do basically everything in Imperial.

Basically the US as both simultaneously the biggest economy and the least damaged by WW2 had far less incentive to switch on a Day to Day basis than anyone else.

Quite true.
A further example is how at the end of WW2 Japan and Germany were rubble, while the US was untouched and even the UK not as badly knocked around as the others.
Fast forward a decade or so and you found that the Japanese and German cars had OHC, IRS, and aluminum heads. Meanwhile the US and UK cars were cast iron pushrod dinosaurs. Guess whose motor industries went ahead?
We were looking at new military helicopter fleets. The VP of Sikorsky talked proudly about how in some cases they were still using Igor Sikorsky's original jigs. Meanwhile my team was evaluating Eurocopter's carbon fibre fleets.
Same thing with the metric system. Virtually every engineering calculation is much easier with metric.
My wife is a keen cook, and grew up in England with the imperial system. When she gets a new recipe from the US I have to interpret for her. How many ounces in a kilogram she wails?
Those on here arguing haven't used both, I have.

Silverwall wrote:it is Telling that only 3 countries still use imperial measures.

3)Myanmar (Burma)
2)Liberia (founded by no 1)
1)USA

Even in the US almost all science is done in Metric and more and more engineering is also done in metric with civil Engineering and Aerospace being the biggest areas where they still do basically everything in Imperial.

Basically the US as both simultaneously the biggest economy and the least damaged by WW2 had far less incentive to switch on a Day to Day basis than anyone else.

Robert_A_Woodward wrote:A kilogram is an arbitrary mass. A meter is an arbitrary length. Any useful calculation in the metric system will inlcude arbitrary numbers that either have to be remembered or looked up. That is why I believe that the additional numbers (I believe that I can get by with 6 or so) that the Imperial system entails are not a critical impairment.

Almost no calculations in metric require conversion tables. That you have to look up some constants (or remember them) is something that's universal regardless of what system you use.

All measurement system are built upon some arbitrary numbers derived from physical reality, but the metric system in contrast to imperial uses a very few basic ones to create a coherent whole.

For everyday use it doesn't really matter what system you use, but as soon we start going into the territory of physics and engineering metric confers a real advantage. When it comes to chemistry, well, it's all about referencing constants in one way or another.

I just wish we’d pick a system and roll with it. I get it; there’s two systems of measurement: the metric system and the one used by the people who put men on the moon. But we need to move on and join the team and come on in for the big win. This business where I have thousands of dollars invested in tools that are absolutely useless to me outside of work drives me to distraction. If I’m spending $160 on a single wrench (all told I’ve got somewhat more than 70 wrenches between 1/8” and 1-3/8”) I’d at least like to be able to take them home and use them on my cars sometimes. As it is, the only thing in my garage that uses SAE hardware is my push mower. My *old* push mower. The new one is metric, too.

Well even as a someone fully comfortable with the oddities of the imperial system, I still at least somewhat like the idea of the metric system... but I loathe the stupid meter. Why couldn't they have picked a logical base? Something that actually occurs in nature and can be easily visualized?

Or if there is anything remotely common in nature that is 'about' the size of a meter, please educate me. Because I can't think of a single one.

FriarBob wrote:Well even as a someone fully comfortable with the oddities of the imperial system, I still at least somewhat like the idea of the metric system... but I loathe the stupid meter. Why couldn't they have picked a logical base? Something that actually occurs in nature and can be easily visualized?

Or if there is anything remotely common in nature that is 'about' the size of a meter, please educate me. Because I can't think of a single one.

It’s one ten millionth the distance from the equator to the North Pole! Nothing more natural and easily visualized than that!

Having lived with both systems, I find that in an approximate day to day situation a metre is about a yard. To convert it to approximate imperial, a metre is 40 inches, a yard is 36 inches, and an adult male striding out is about 30 inches.
Where I live my driveway is 200 metres, but I often say 200 yards.

Silverwall wrote:
This actually highlights one of the issues, you need a STRONG central govt that will mandate and enforce this change with fines and other punishments for non-compliance. This lack of follow through is what doomed metric in the states.

And then, we could be just as screwed up as Europe and the rest of the world!

Nothing guarantees that a program is going to end as a rolling cluster grope like lots and lots of government involvement and bureaucracy.

Not that we aren't screwed up- it's just in different ways.

Robert_A_Woodward wrote:
A kilogram is an arbitrary mass. A meter is an arbitrary length. Any useful calculation in the metric system will inlcude arbitrary numbers that either have to be remembered or looked up. That is why I believe that the additional numbers (I believe that I can get by with 6 or so) that the Imperial system entails are not a critical impairment.

But that is incorrect, there is nothing "Arbitrary" about metric - everything is based on water. 1g of water is 1 ml in volume - which has a dimension of a cube with each side being 1cm in dimension (1cm^3). it takes 1 Joule of energy to raise 1 ml of water 1 degree C, with 0 C equal to freezing and 100 the boiling point of water.

The issue for me was always the focus on conversion between metric and Imperial in teaching in the US, not the actual use of metric. If they had focused on the use, more people would use it.