Should the U.S adopt the Metric system completely and why?

[Leifmk]

Not having a year zero messes up calculations in astronomy and history.

It's not really a noteworthy problem, I think.

Astronomers already use a separate chronology, counting days from an epoch in prehistory... let me look that up... yeah, the Julian Date, which must in no way be confused with the Julian calendar. Their epoch is deliberately set before any historically recorded astronomical phenomenon, but does extend backwards into negative numbers (with the epoch itself being day 0).

And those historians who need to calculate the length of an interval of time spanning the BCE/CE era are pretty much all aware of the non-existence of a year 0, so I don't think it's much of a problem for them. (Inaccuracies in source materials are more bothersome.)

I suspect that the main effect of our common calendar not having a year 0 is a bunch of arguments between nerds on the intertubes.

 

[Akka]

Why would we use the metric system? The American system is better.

Must be why everyone use metrics.
And also, it's obvious that using weird measures that have completely random relationships is definitely better than an universal decimal system.

 

[warpus]

Yeah, that's what I like about Fahrenheit too - 0 means it's about as cold as you're likely to see outside, 100 is about the highest temperature we see, and anything outside the 0-100 range generally means that crazy weather is happening (barring subarctic/arctic areas and hot deserts).

I'm at the same latitude as southern oregon and in the winter it gets as cold as -20/-30 F

People keep saying that Celsius is "less precise" but.. no.. not really. in everyday usage, the two are fairly comparable. In F you will not really say "Yeah, it's 72 out dude" when estimating the temperature.. You'll stick to the 0s and 5s. In celsius you are more likely to use estimates of 17 or 22 or whatever. Either way, you guys make it sound like celsius is a scale from 1 to 5.

 

[say1988]

The thing is that most people posting here will use imperial most of the time, if the US converted. In Canada many goods are still marked in both (particularily food priced by weight), because the older segment of the population still uses imperial (along with the US influence), but in my lifetime I have seen metric gradually taking over. The next generation will primarily use metric, with some imperial, and a couple generations down the road, nobody will care. It isn't like they will make the use of the imperial system illegal.
For necessary stuff, such as speed limits, people will learn very fast, since they need to in every day use.

As for temperature, who cares? If you need precision where C and F make a difference you will use decimals. And, since you are likely in a scientific field, you are probably using C or K in any case.
For every day use, a difference only 1 point on either scale doesn't really matter. Would you notice the difference between 80 and 81 F? Hell, tiny shifts in humidty are greater than this.

 

[stormerne]

I'm a Brit who emigrated to the US last year. Some measurements here are crazy, but they have one thing right - and I never thought I'd hear myself saying that! For scientific purposes, the metric system may be best, but how many people are scientists? By contrast, human comfort is best measured in Fahrenheit. Scale it 0-100 like you were reading a meter. Less than 0°F is off-scale and clearly too cold. More than 100° is off-scale and clearly too hot. Between the two is bearable at worst and delightful at best. The 3db point is 71° and that's just perfect.

 

[Arakhor]

As opposed to Celsius, where below 0 is clearly too cold and above 30 is clearly too hot? Why do you need 100 numbers when 30 will do just fine?

 

[stormerne]

As opposed to Celsius, where below 0 is clearly too cold and above 30 is clearly too hot? Why do you need 100 numbers when 30 will do just fine?

And why not have teachers mark essays 0-30? Because we don't think like that in the rest of our lives. Why have percentages? Why have meters that read zero to some power of 10? Because rightly or wrongly we tend to think 0-100.

And below 0°C is fine unless you're in a humid climate like the UK. A thousand miles from the ocean and -10°C or even -15°C is cold but quite OK. And in Glasgow I would rarely need a spread of more than 15 degrees Celsius. In Kuala Lumpur, I would never need more than 7 degrees. <shrugs>

Horses for courses. In the US, Fahrenheit is a good choice for measuring temperature for human comfort.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I like how in Fahrenheit the number of degrees from freezing to boiling is 180. If you are going to call them degrees, numbers like 180 or 360 make more sense than 100.

If I were to design a scale measuring temperature in degrees, I would probably start at absolute zero and make the triple points of water 360 degrees. On the other hand, I think using hydrogen or helium as the standard instead of water would make for a better, more universal system. If the units of temperature did not use the term degree I'd probably define 0 as absolute 0 and 1 as the melting point of Helium (the lowest melting point of any element).

 

[eduhum]

Well, personally I think that the metric system in IS is very useful.
1 centimeter is 10 milimeter (spanish translation), 1 meter is 100 centimeter and 1 kilometer is 1000 meters.
Exactly the same with capacity, weight, etc&#8230;
For the temperature, there is ºC, ºK and ºF. ºC and ºK are the same, except that ºK is +273 degrees than ºC. ºF I don't find it very useful&#8230;
And to


I'd probably define 0 as absolute 0 and 1 as the melting point of Helium (the lowest melting point of any element).

I'd say this is more more usefl scientificaly, but not generally in the every day matters&#8230;&#8230;

 

[say1988]

The problem with K (just K, not ºK) is that the big numbers are inconvenient for every day life. But it is great for science putting 0 and absolute 0.

 

[Bootstoots]

I'm at the same latitude as southern oregon and in the winter it gets as cold as -20/-30 F

Yeah, that's true, cold continental climates do routinely record subzero Fahrenheit temperatures. You have to be pretty far north (north of about 46 N or thereabouts) to see the average January low approach 0 F though. I went to college in Iowa around 42 N and temperatures would dip below zero a number of times every winter - the lowest value I saw was around -15 F or so (windchill was around -30 F) - but the average January low is still well above 0 F. But yeah, I'll grant that in Canada your usable range is more like -20 to 100 F, with occasional deviations outside that range.

 

[Arakhor]

Well, it is a scientific scale, often used for improbable temperatures, such as 4000+ K for the surface of the sun.

 

[bhsup]

So then we need a Kelfin where absolute zero is still 0, but then it graduates up at the Fahrenheit rate. Water would freeze 491.67 Kelfin and boil at 671.67 Kelfin.

 

[Arakhor]

Why, exactly?

 

[bhsup]

To stick it to the metric system, cuz it sucks.

 

[Arakhor]

Glad to see you're being rational about things.

 

[Leonel]

To stick it to the metric system, cuz it sucks.

Nuh uh! You suck!

 

[Lillefix]

You have to be pretty far north (north of about 46 N or thereabouts) to see the average January low approach 0 F though.

That's just north of Spain. Talking about having a different perception of how far north is "pretty far north".

So then we need a Kelfin where absolute zero is still 0, but then it graduates up at the Fahrenheit rate. Water would freeze 491.67 Kelfin and boil at 671.67 Kelfin.

You mean the Rankine scale?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rankine_scale

 

[Traitorfish]

I like how in Fahrenheit the number of degrees from freezing to boiling is 180. If you are going to call them degrees, numbers like 180 or 360 make more sense than 100.

Not really. "Degree" just refers to a discrete unit of increment; that circles are arbitrarily divided into 360 of them is really neither here nor there.

 

[say1988]

To stick it to the metric system, cuz it sucks.

Except everyone who uses K, uses metric, so it would be pointless.