 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>> I'm not saying metric isn't easier. I'm pointing out that imperial stuff,
>> since it's based on people, is very poor at measuring things that aren't
>> approximately relevant to people, like the weight of planets or the size of
>> atoms.
>
> It's not just that: imperial isn't precise. I asked before and it was ignored,
Well, *now* it is precise. Obviously it wasn't precise when it was
formulated. I think the foot, however, was the size of some specific king's
foot. And the metric measurements have changed definitions over the years as
well.
> Besides, you need to put true mental calculations at work to convert between
> units, instead of simply moving the point forward or backwards between
> centimeters, meters and kilometers...
Sure, because there are different units, unlike the SI measurements which
only have one unit per fundamental element being measured. I still have to
put mental calculations forth to translate between seconds and meters, or
between meters and light-years, or between watt-hours and watt-months, or
between moles and grams, because they're different units based on arbitrary
physical properties. The fact that one has to translate between inches and
feet isn't really any more of a problem than the fact that metric
measurements have to translate between seconds and years.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Quoth the raven:
Need S'Mores!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29/08/2010 12:53 AM, Darren New wrote:
>
> Well, *now* it is precise. Obviously it wasn't precise when it was
> formulated. I think the foot, however, was the size of some specific
> king's foot. And the metric measurements have changed definitions over
> the years as well.
>
Henry I of England, but not his bare foot.
>> Besides, you need to put true mental calculations at work to convert
>> between
>> units, instead of simply moving the point forward or backwards between
>> centimeters, meters and kilometers...
>
> Sure, because there are different units, unlike the SI measurements
> which only have one unit per fundamental element being measured. I still
> have to put mental calculations forth to translate between seconds and
> meters, or between meters and light-years, or between watt-hours and
> watt-months, or between moles and grams, because they're different units
> based on arbitrary physical properties. The fact that one has to
> translate between inches and feet isn't really any more of a problem
> than the fact that metric measurements have to translate between seconds
> and years.
I would say less of a problem, actually. Constantly doing mental
arithmetic helps keep the mind active. I’ve noticed, here in the UK, the
lack of ability in young people who grew up learning the metric system.
I assume that they did not have to do sums like:
What is the cost of 3 yards 1 foot of material @ 2/6 a yard.
Ans: 8/4 That is 8 shillings and 4 pence.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 29/08/2010 11:17, Stephen nous fit lire :
> On 29/08/2010 12:53 AM, Darren New wrote:
>>
>> Well, *now* it is precise. Obviously it wasn't precise when it was
>> formulated. I think the foot, however, was the size of some specific
>> king's foot. And the metric measurements have changed definitions over
>> the years as well.
>>
>
> Henry I of England, but not his bare foot.
>
>>> Besides, you need to put true mental calculations at work to convert
>>> between
>>> units, instead of simply moving the point forward or backwards between
>>> centimeters, meters and kilometers...
>>
>> Sure, because there are different units, unlike the SI measurements
>> which only have one unit per fundamental element being measured. I still
>> have to put mental calculations forth to translate between seconds and
>> meters, or between meters and light-years, or between watt-hours and
>> watt-months, or between moles and grams, because they're different units
>> based on arbitrary physical properties. The fact that one has to
>> translate between inches and feet isn't really any more of a problem
>> than the fact that metric measurements have to translate between seconds
>> and years.
>
> I would say less of a problem, actually. Constantly doing mental
> arithmetic helps keep the mind active. I’ve noticed, here in the UK, the
> lack of ability in young people who grew up learning the metric system.
> I assume that they did not have to do sums like:
> What is the cost of 3 yards 1 foot of material @ 2/6 a yard.
>
> Ans: 8/4 That is 8 shillings and 4 pence.
>
Why stop at only mental activity, let's also take into account the year
of mint, as it used to be.
And each mint (and that could each city) could have its own agenda for
the weight of its pounds & guinea.
May be I can slice some pounds in two, or scrap enough of them to make a
new one...
Shilling has been dropped in 1971... and the penny is now decimal.
But we can mix pound, shilling (at 20 per pound), pences (at 240 per
pound) and new pences (at 100 per pound) with guinea (1 pound 1 shilling)
Oh, I call in the Bretton Woods system, in which I could exchange 1
pounds for $4.03...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29/08/2010 10:49 AM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Why stop at only mental activity, let's also take into account the year
> of mint, as it used to be.
> And each mint (and that could each city) could have its own agenda for
> the weight of its pounds& guinea.
>
Now you are being silly. ;-)
> May be I can slice some pounds in two, or scrap enough of them to make a
> new one...
>
That is why coins are milled. To stop people like you shaving or
clipping coins. :-P
> Shilling has been dropped in 1971... and the penny is now decimal.
> But we can mix pound, shilling (at 20 per pound), pences (at 240 per
> pound) and new pences (at 100 per pound) with guinea (1 pound 1 shilling)
>
But some of us remember the days of L.s.d. man ;-)
> Oh, I call in the Bretton Woods system,
Morning town Crescent!
> in which I could exchange 1
> pounds for $4.03...
I remember my father calling a half crown (12.5p) a half dollar.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le_Forgeron wrote:
> And each mint (and that could each city) could have its own agenda for
> the weight of its pounds & guinea.
Well, yes. There's also the problem with imperial measures that the king
would go around declaring that a barrel in London is somewhat larger than a
barrel outside of London, thereby lowering the cost of beer in the capital
city and stuff like that.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Quoth the raven:
Need S'Mores!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29-8-2010 1:53, Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> I'm not saying metric isn't easier. I'm pointing out that imperial
>>> stuff,
>>> since it's based on people, is very poor at measuring things that aren't
>>> approximately relevant to people, like the weight of planets or the
>>> size of
>>> atoms.
>>
>> It's not just that: imperial isn't precise. I asked before and it was
>> ignored,
>
> Well, *now* it is precise. Obviously it wasn't precise when it was
> formulated. I think the foot, however, was the size of some specific
> king's foot. And the metric measurements have changed definitions over
> the years as well.
Such changes occur for good reasons. E.g. in the triple
time/velocity/length you can define any two and the third can then be
measured. Originally the speed of light was the quantity to measure.
Nowadays that is a constant, otherwise the theoretical physicists would
be very upset.
If you define the length then you can measure how long one second is. Or
you define a meter and then you can measure how much time a photon takes
to traverse that distance. Which one you choose simply depends on what
you can measure most accurately. If your error in a meter is, say, one
in 10^12 and in a second it is one in 10^10, it is unwise to take the
second as definition, because the maximal achievable precision of a
length measurement will then drop to one in 10^10.
I hope all imperial units are now defined as fractions of the metric
ones or we will need two committees to decide when to change the places
of meters and seconds. However, if you look at the wiki page about
imperial units some conversions are exact, whereas others are given to
be exact to 4 or 5 decimal places. Much larger than the scientific
uncertainty in the values, so that supports nemesis' claim, although
perhaps not in the way he/she meant.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29/08/2010 5:48 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Le_Forgeron wrote:
>> And each mint (and that could each city) could have its own agenda for
>> the weight of its pounds & guinea.
>
> Well, yes. There's also the problem with imperial measures that the king
> would go around declaring that a barrel in London is somewhat larger
> than a barrel outside of London, thereby lowering the cost of beer in
> the capital city and stuff like that.
>
LOL, not quite, declaring that a barrel in London is somewhat larger
than a barrel outside of London, thereby getting more tax and making it
dearer.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 16:55:35 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>> Oh, I call in the Bretton Woods system,
>
> Morning town Crescent!
No, you can't do that, because it's the 29th of the month, so diagonals
are not allowed... ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29/08/2010 6:57 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 16:55:35 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>> Oh, I call in the Bretton Woods system,
>>
>> Morning town Crescent!
>
> No, you can't do that, because it's the 29th of the month, so diagonals
> are not allowed... ;-)
>
But using the “Bretton Woods system” allows me to move in a chess knight
like manner.
BTW Humph Celebration Concert tomorrow
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tj5qp
If you can’t get it I’ll record it if it’s on listen again.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 29-8-2010 1:53, Darren New wrote:
> Such changes occur for good reasons.
Of course.
> I hope all imperial units are now defined as fractions of the metric
Honestly, I have no idea. I know they're more precise than the size of some
king's shoe or how far Fred can march in 15 minutes.
> the wiki page about imperial units s
Wow. That's messier than I thought. ;-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Quoth the raven:
Need S'Mores!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
