Oruc
Reactionary
i think we had a maths lesson about that stuff once, but i was taught to use metric system when i was really little so i cant really get my head round all the other stuff
America and the metric system
- Thread starter WillJ
- Start date
Serutan
Eatibus Anythingibus
The real problem with that mission was that it was done at the
height of NASA's "Faster, cheaper, better" fad, and one of the
things they did to make it "cheaper" was to test componenents
seaprately, but not do a test of the assembled system
(which would have found the conversion problem in short order).
This failure was what made people realize that "faster" and "cheaper" were happening at the expense of "better".
I hope we go metric, but I think what will really happen is that
we will gradually become more metric oriented without converting completely.
Cunobelin
I aint no hippo
Well in the irish military just about every measurement is still given in imperial. Gun weights and lengths, muzzle velocities, distances and speeds are all imperial and noone has a clue what the metric equivelants are
RegentMan
Deity
If America switches to the metric system, I'll be the first one in-line for a coup attempt. (J/k of course, but they better not change it!)
Archer 007
Rebirth
Having to rememiorize something new.
Bose
Antipodean
I think it's something a little different and more to do with pride than that...
Akka
Moody old mage.
Well, my history classes, but I'm afraid they aren't on Internet ^^
Though I think I can find a link or two with ease if you really need them
Yes, but the mass of this standard was initially defined as being the same mass of "one litre of water". It's just that they had not a very high precision with their tools, so it ended being 0,998 Kg rather than 1 Kg.
MHSoft
Warlord
People growing up in Britain today don't really get taught about the imperial system at all, except for perhaps the odd lesson about imperial-metric conversion in maths. Everything in shops is now sold per gramme or per litre, so there's very little need to know anything about the old system. It's just a matter of time before the generation used to using imperial dies out and then we'll be fully metric.
It's weird in a way though that although there is legislation to make you sell loose goods in metric rather than imperial, it's illegal to have a road sign that gives a distance in km rather than miles. And I've yet to see anyone go into a pub and ask for half a litre of bitter.
Pillager
League of Empire Loyalist
Although we don't tend to get taught many imperial measurements at school, one tends to pick them through life. For example, I'm in my twenties and I remember having my height measured at junior school at 126cm. Ask me now my height in metres and I have no idea, nor will most people not still at school. It's the same with weight. At the doctor's, one's weight will often be officially measured in kg, but he'll tell you it in stones and pounds, because no-one measures their weight in kilograms.
I remember having a discussion with my mother about pounds and ounces when I was doing cookery at school. At school, the weights were given in both systems, but at home we did it all in pounds and ounces. As such, now if for some bizarre reaon I wanted to attempt a recipe, I'd do so in pounds and ounces as that's what I understand better.
It's all about the importance of education outside the school. Whatever one is educated at school, if one sees mainly a different system in the home, on the roads, etc, then one will at least know both systems.
I remember having a discussion with my mother about pounds and ounces when I was doing cookery at school. At school, the weights were given in both systems, but at home we did it all in pounds and ounces. As such, now if for some bizarre reaon I wanted to attempt a recipe, I'd do so in pounds and ounces as that's what I understand better.
It's all about the importance of education outside the school. Whatever one is educated at school, if one sees mainly a different system in the home, on the roads, etc, then one will at least know both systems.
Siegmund
King
To confirm what others have said:
The original intention was indeed to have a meter be 1/40,000,000th of the earth's circumference and for the kilogram to be the mass of one liter of water. But it was also the intention that the standards be reproducible so that people anywhere would be using the same meter and kilogram.
At the time, it made a lot more sense to make an accurate measurement once, then have everyone else use the Standard Meter and Standard Kilogram standards instead of making the physical measurements themselves. As it happened, the standard meter they made was a tiny bit too short, so now the earth is 40,008 km around the poles and 40,076 km around the equator.
In the age of modern physics, we had the opposite problem: it has become easier, and more precise, to calibrate equipment based on performing standard experiments than by direct measurement of the international standard objects.
In practical terms, none of the meter, kilogram, and second have changed in size; technically they have changed, very very slightly, to accommodate more precise measurements in the future. There is no way of ever measuring the distance between two scratches on a steel bar to anything more precise than hundredths of a millimeter. As soon as you perform a calculation that requires more than 5 decimal places of precision, the definition of the meter becomes your largest source of error! For that reason they then changed the definition to be based on the wavelength of a certain reproducible colour of light, something that can be measured much more precisely in a lab. This didn't "change" the length of the meter, merely made it more precise: there simply was no answer to "what is the correct sixth decimal place for the length of the Standard Meter?" before 1906.
The definition was rewritten again in 1960, from an experiment performed in air to an experiment performed in a vacuum, so that the precision could be carried out past the 8th decimal place.
The change in 1983 was a bit different: this time they actually did change the length of the meter, not just make it more precise. It was possible to measure the speed of light to 11 or 12 decimal places based on the 1960 definition of the meter, but there was a philosophic desire to base the system on something constant everywhere in the universe.. and so now it is the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299792458th of a second (with the length of the second defined from cesium atoms, as mentioned in a previous post -- but if the idea of the 'Planck time' from relativity turns out to be meaningful, this one may be redefined sometime too.)
The kilogram remains based off the physical object, for now, but I would not be surprised to see that change sometime in the not-too-distant future: instead, the definitions of ampere and mole rely on that of the kilogram. Probably someday they will have ways to count atoms precisely enough to define the kilogram as n atoms of something, instead of just making the mole be "however many it takes to make it work."
The original intention was indeed to have a meter be 1/40,000,000th of the earth's circumference and for the kilogram to be the mass of one liter of water. But it was also the intention that the standards be reproducible so that people anywhere would be using the same meter and kilogram.
At the time, it made a lot more sense to make an accurate measurement once, then have everyone else use the Standard Meter and Standard Kilogram standards instead of making the physical measurements themselves. As it happened, the standard meter they made was a tiny bit too short, so now the earth is 40,008 km around the poles and 40,076 km around the equator.
In the age of modern physics, we had the opposite problem: it has become easier, and more precise, to calibrate equipment based on performing standard experiments than by direct measurement of the international standard objects.
In practical terms, none of the meter, kilogram, and second have changed in size; technically they have changed, very very slightly, to accommodate more precise measurements in the future. There is no way of ever measuring the distance between two scratches on a steel bar to anything more precise than hundredths of a millimeter. As soon as you perform a calculation that requires more than 5 decimal places of precision, the definition of the meter becomes your largest source of error! For that reason they then changed the definition to be based on the wavelength of a certain reproducible colour of light, something that can be measured much more precisely in a lab. This didn't "change" the length of the meter, merely made it more precise: there simply was no answer to "what is the correct sixth decimal place for the length of the Standard Meter?" before 1906.
The definition was rewritten again in 1960, from an experiment performed in air to an experiment performed in a vacuum, so that the precision could be carried out past the 8th decimal place.
The change in 1983 was a bit different: this time they actually did change the length of the meter, not just make it more precise. It was possible to measure the speed of light to 11 or 12 decimal places based on the 1960 definition of the meter, but there was a philosophic desire to base the system on something constant everywhere in the universe.. and so now it is the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299792458th of a second (with the length of the second defined from cesium atoms, as mentioned in a previous post -- but if the idea of the 'Planck time' from relativity turns out to be meaningful, this one may be redefined sometime too.)
The kilogram remains based off the physical object, for now, but I would not be surprised to see that change sometime in the not-too-distant future: instead, the definitions of ampere and mole rely on that of the kilogram. Probably someday they will have ways to count atoms precisely enough to define the kilogram as n atoms of something, instead of just making the mole be "however many it takes to make it work."
Lord_Vetinari
übermensch
Altough I don't know if the decimalized monetary system counts as metric or not, I just have to post this Pratchett-Gaiman quote here. It's from Good Omens:
The quote says it all really. Future generations will thank you if you make the switch to metric as soon as possible, and they will probably wonder why on earth you stuck with the old system for so long
The quote says it all really. Future generations will thank you if you make the switch to metric as soon as possible, and they will probably wonder why on earth you stuck with the old system for so long
thestonesfan
A Client of Ron Kuby
"Miles" sounds so much better than "kilometers" though. That's worth keeping the old way.
Lord_Vetinari
übermensch
Then you need to convert to the Swedish language as well, since we have that too
Well, almost: We have a word called "mil" that means ten kilometers. Needless to say, this creates a lot of confusion when Swedes are confronted by the American measurement system for the first time and believe that a mile is a mil.
Well, almost: We have a word called "mil" that means ten kilometers. Needless to say, this creates a lot of confusion when Swedes are confronted by the American measurement system for the first time and believe that a mile is a mil.
The UK has a crazy mixture. As Pillager says we measure high temperatures in Fahrenheit and temperatures near freezing point in Celsius. We buy petrol in litres but economy figures are in miles per gallon. We buy spirits in centilitre measures but beer in pints.
When buying fence posts, I have to specify the length in metres but the cross section as 4x4 in inches.
In physics, everyone uses the metric system - yes even professional US physicists. It is global and used by 100%.
When buying fence posts, I have to specify the length in metres but the cross section as 4x4 in inches.
In physics, everyone uses the metric system - yes even professional US physicists. It is global and used by 100%.
Pillager
League of Empire Loyalist
One of the most ridiculous ways in which the metric has been enforced has been in the use of millitmetres. If something is not measured in British units, it's often measured in millimetres regardless of the scale. So one sees the occasional advertisement for windows that are 8000mm x 5000mm or whatever. This has to be the most stupid implementation. Who can visualise 8000mm?
a) Do it in feet and inches, as everyone understand that.
b) If it really has to be in the metric system, at least use metres/centimetres, which at least some people can visualise, and if they can't they can at least make a stab at converting it to inches without having to divide by 10s to get it into a manageable measurement.
a) Do it in feet and inches, as everyone understand that.
b) If it really has to be in the metric system, at least use metres/centimetres, which at least some people can visualise, and if they can't they can at least make a stab at converting it to inches without having to divide by 10s to get it into a manageable measurement.
Its done this way because the measurements are exact to the nearest millimetre and its felt to be better than writing 8.000 x 5.000. Not everyone understands the significance of those zeros 
Pillager
League of Empire Loyalist
OK, another example.
Last year, I went to buy plastic bags for my kitchen pedal bin. I looked at the bags on offer. One company had theirs in inches, so I looked at the bin in my mind's eye, estimated the circumference and bought the closest size. Out of interest I looked at the products of another company. This was a European company, and their bags' circumferences were all measured in mms. Why, goddamnit? Why not just write "Bag, circumference: 84cms". To paraphrase Mr. Fawlty, "What is the point, I mean what is the bloody point, in using mms?"
As I say, if like the other company, they had used inches, they might have got a sale as they were a bit cheaper, but I wasn't about stand there converting mms into cms, and then cms into inches....I have better things to do
Last year, I went to buy plastic bags for my kitchen pedal bin. I looked at the bags on offer. One company had theirs in inches, so I looked at the bin in my mind's eye, estimated the circumference and bought the closest size. Out of interest I looked at the products of another company. This was a European company, and their bags' circumferences were all measured in mms. Why, goddamnit? Why not just write "Bag, circumference: 84cms". To paraphrase Mr. Fawlty, "What is the point, I mean what is the bloody point, in using mms?"
As I say, if like the other company, they had used inches, they might have got a sale as they were a bit cheaper, but I wasn't about stand there converting mms into cms, and then cms into inches....I have better things to do
I just look at how big the bag is?? I dont need a figure to compare.
Pillager
League of Empire Loyalist
That would be too simple - they were packaged up and folded, and the pictures were unhelpful to say the least.Similar threads
