I think one of the biggest benefits of the metric system in the sciences (as illustrated by TKO's post) is just how small metric measurements can get. A lot of the Imperial units of measurements are too big to do certain things in science.
I don't think of going from 10,000m to 10km as really a conversion anymore. To me it is the same as rewriting 10 thousand meters as 10,000 m. One wouldn't call what I wrote in the second line a conversion....and similarly rewriting 10,000 m as 10 km is just going from back and forth between letters and numbers.
So really, your argument for the metric system here, aside from having slow students, is the exact same argument people have for keeping the Imperial system. ^See that? That's the world's fastest production aircraft. It was designed using slide rules. Guess what units the engineers used? Hell, if you look up any information on say, the engine that powers it, what units do you suppose everything is labeled in if you want to do an analysis of the gas turbines? ^See that? Designed well before computers and calculators. Guess what units the engineers used? Guess what else was designed using Imperial units?
A stupid response, since chemistry is metric and those systems at the time were not. You're comparing two things that have nothing to do with each other at this moment. My field is metric because it's convenient. End of story. I said I could use another system but it's not worth the trouble. I don't see what else you could possibly try to argue. Someone made a plane with another system? Woop de doo, that's their problem. If my post went over your head, just ask me to clarify and I will. If you haven't had a chemistry class in a while I can see how it would get confusing.
My past experience with chemistry has nothing to do with it. You're the one who argued that everything should be metric because all of your equipment and supplies were metric and because it was easier for the slow students to use. Well guess what? That wasn't always the case, as in the metric system is hardly necessary to do anything, including chemistry. So if ym response is stupid, it's because your argument was stupid.
Just because something was done in the past one way, does not mean another way is not easier. No one is saying Imperial doesn't work, just that it is harder to use from an objective standpoint. If aliens landed on earth and we were teaching them a measuring system we'd use metric cause it's easier and more logical
This is exactly my point, which Captain X keeps missing. It's convenient. It makes dealing with numbers and measurements easier. Also, The scientific system is already set up that way so that's how I do things. If the sciences were to switch to the English system, we'd be fucked for a few years trying to re-adjust everything and the expenses would be insane. Dealing with micro-scale work (i.e. my entire field) would be a headache. Had we originally had the English system on everything, it wouldn't matter. We wouldn't know any better and we would think things were ok. But metric really, truly simplifies a lot of stuff, as evidenced ten times over in my wall-long post. I was just arguing that due to convenience, my field uses one type of system. If he can't get that through his head... wow There seriously can't be an argument left here.
Meh, two differing systems of measurement with one deemed superior for its ease of use. Yet ease is ignored when it comes to actual usage, using a familiar system will always be easier than adapting to a new one. This is akin to speaking Esperanto, sure it makes more sense yet why would most folks care to switch? Most folks aren't interested in "superior" measurement systems, by and large it makes no difference whatsoever. Wanna claim "science" prefers a system of measurement fine, yet acknowledge most folks aren't scientists and have more important things to worry about.
Oh and where is the sanctimonious call for metric time? 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour, 24 hours in a day? Sounds inferior to base 10 time.
It's also a convention that is pretty much universal and has been for a long time, unlike other measuring units. That was one of the biggest reasons for the metric system. Today, there are basically only three measuring systems in the whole world, two of which (US and Imperial) are variations of each other. And 95% of the countries in the world use the other one. But there were lots of systems, none of them really standardized and handy, before metric was invented. Thus, though metric time would be much easier (10 hours per day, 100 minutes per hour, 100 seconds per minute, resulting in a minute that would be about 1.44 of our current minutes and a second that would be about 0.86 of our current seconds), it is not nearly as necessary. And it still would not solve, or even help with, the problem of reconciling days and years, which simply will not match up nicely, no matter what tricks you use.
Time is constrained by reality. If the amount of time in a day is not in actuality a factor of 10 there is nothing you can do about that. Any attempt to force base 10 in would result in messy leftovers.
Sorry, but this is nonsense. Whether the amount of time in a day is "a factor of 10" depends on what size units you use. If you use the right size unit, the time in a day is indeed a factor of 10, with no messy leftovers whatsoever. The amount of time it takes the earth to turn from facing the sun to facing the sun again is very regular, and you can divide it up any way you want.
At some point unless the actual rotation is divisible by ten you're going to be unable to use base 10. You could set up a 20 time period day with each period made up of a number divisible by ten. Eventually though you're going to have to account for the reality.
You know that is a meaningless justification. No one system of measurement is necessary. Even metric proponents acknowledge the specific length of a meter is irrelevant. The metric systems solves nothing. It is simply another means of recording physical data. Tricks and reconciliation don't matter, simply put metric time would be easier to use. There is no argument that can be used against metric time that can't be used against the metric system in general.
It's only harder for some people because they are used to using metric. What's easier to use is hardly objective except on a person to person basis. The reason I'm bringing up these other examples is because the argument has repeatedly been made that Imperial is an inferior system when it clearly isn't. We literally went to the moon using the Imperial system of measurement. Hey, don't try to act smug when someone else made your point better than you could. I responded to what you actually wrote. For you, for this application. I never said anyone had to do anything. Did you miss that little point? I only ever said that if you're basing which system of measurement you use on the basis of your students being morons that this is a bad mentality to have for the sciences, which includes engineering. Speaking of, engineering is hardly "set up" to use only one system of measurement either, which is kind of nice when you think about it. In the US, I'm sure everything was conveniently marked with Imperial units. I but you could even still find some of it. So basically you're saying that since your one field is "special" that the metric system is superior? And you're basing this argument entirely on the premise that it's convenient? Okay, this is my argument: Tony Stark made this in a cave out of scraps! Therefore, your argument is invalid. There was, actually, back around the time the metric system was first being widely adopted. You can even still find some watches that were built to use it. But, despite the admitted flaws with the existing system, people are just too used to using it. Go figure.
Standard time *is* metric time. The metric system DEFINES the second. Minutes, hours, days, weeks, years, are multiples thereof. No, it isn't based on powers of 10. So what? The second (which is VERY accurately defined) is all you need as a standard and it corresponds very, very well to the second as defined by the Earth's movement around the sun. Yes, some metric time scheme could use powers of 10, but human life is sorta already organized around a 24-hour clock. 10 metric-hours in a day would be too few, and 100 metric-hours in a day would be too many.
Are you sure about that? Isn't explosive power is measured in (metric) kilotons TNT? Or look at this:
If base 10 is so great then how come there are 24 hours in a day and not 10 units of some kind equivalent to 2.4 hours? How come there are 60 minutes in an hour and not 100 units equivalent to .6 minutes? Why 7 days in a week and not 10? What I see is 100% hypocritical people. They claim they love the metric system until they run into a part of it they don't like. If I had my way, those bragging on the metric system would be forced to live every part of it.
Do you not grasp that you when said days should be in base 10 with units equivalent to 2.4 hours each you completely contradicted yourself. You can't have a base 10 system with a unit composed of 2.4 anything.
Well it wouldn't be 2.4 units of anything. I said the equivalent. 10 metric hours = 24 regular hours. I mean Wait! Its base 10 and simple and just so god damned fucking easy to use. That is the programmed babble I keep hearing from most of you.
That there is a functioning metric time system and even the Euros don't want to use it. No country is fully on the metric system and none is fully on any other system and everyone thinks the system that they like is the best system. Base ten is not the answer for much of the world, it is just another conversion. Does it really matter if you are converting a base 10 system or the US system to something useful like Hex? It depends on what you are measuring for the handiness of the system you use. The other problem is that with a conversion to metric when people are unfamiliar it usually results in a price increase. I mean a 20oz British pint of around 570 milliliters cost no more than a half liter on the continent. Things are cheaper by the gallon than they are by buying the equivalent in litres. Tell me of a place that is cheaper with its equivalent in litres than a gallon of gas in the US.
