Re: OT: SI
- From: Louis Epstein <le@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 14:26:01 -0500
Monika <dream_nebula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:
: On 24-Aug-2007, Louis Epstein <le@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:
:> Monika <dream_nebula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:> :
:> : On 22-Aug-2007, Louis Epstein <le@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:> :
:> :> Dragon Rider <fbrunza@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:> :> : On 22 ago, 18:15, Louis Epstein <l...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:> :> :> Monika <dream_neb...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:> :> :>
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> : On 21-Aug-2007, Louis Epstein <l...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:> :> :> :
: <SNIP>
:
:> :> :> :> I rejoice that the USA has not fallen into the fallacy of
:> :> :> :> using a simplistic and soulless measuring system never adopted
:> :> :> :> anywhere except through dictatorial prohibition of freedom of
:> :> :> :> choice.
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> : DOLT!
:> :> :> : Many industries here in the US went over to the metric system decades
:> :> :> : before there was any mandates.
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> : Chemists & pharmacists in the US have been metric for over a century.
:> :> :> : Ever notice the dosage on your perscription? Mg = miligrams, a metric
:> :> :> : measurement of mass.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> I think they used apothecaries' weights more recently than you believe.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> : Ham radio was virtually always on the metric system. Ham operators
:> :> :> : usually refer to the frequencies they hang out on as the Xmeter band.
:> :> :> : That's the physical wavelength of the transmission frequency expressed
:> :> :> : in a metric length.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Frequencies are cycles per second.
:> :> :
:> :> : So that there?s no confusion, v = lambda . f, where v -> velocity,
:> :> : lambda -> wavelength, f -> frequency. Talking about eletromagnetic
:> :> : phenomena in air or vacuum, v = c (speed of light) = 3 * 10^8 m/s.
:> :> :
:> :> : If you quote v in, say, ft/s, then your wavelength will be in feet
:> :> : too. But no one uses it, guess why?
:> :>
:> :> Pro-metric prejudice.
:> :>
:> :> The speed of light measured in 299,792,458ths of the time it takes
:> :> for 9,192,631,770 base-level cesium transitions...yecch.
:> :>
:> :> :> Any use of metric wavelength references probably comes from
:> :> :> international bodies that encourage metric.
:> :> :
:> :> : LOL, it?s the only kind of international body that exists. ISO, TUV,
:> :> : DIN...
:> :> : NO ONE IN THE WORLD encourages another system internationally!
:> :>
:> :> And because they do,those who'd prefer not to use metric
:> :> have no freedom to do so.
:> :>
:> :> : [snip]
:> :> :> : It was adopted because it made things EASY, not because it was
:> enforced
:> :> :> : by some weird dictatorial conspiracy as your paranoid mind seem to
:> think.
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Dumbing down will always be deplorable.
:> :> :
:> :> : Yeah, why use something simple, extendable and functional?
:> :> : Better make it complicated, convoluted and error-prone!
:> :>
:> :> I'd rather not trust the kind of person who can't keep
:> :> the number of inches in a foot straight.
:> :>
:> :> And I'd rather relate length to feet,
:> :> than to 299,792,458ths of the time it takes
:> :> for 9,192,631,770 base-level cesium transitions.
:> :
:> :
:> : Well, let's see......
:> : The Imperial Inch has been officially defined as a unit of lenght equal
:> : to 25.4 milimeters since 1958. So the official standard for all Imperial
:> : measurements is based on the metric system.....how interesting!
:>
:> I would use a far more negative word.
:
: Yes, YOU would. But then, you're just that kind of negative person.
:
:>
:> : At least cesium transitions are highly stable & predictable. Here's what
:> : Wikipedia has to say about the origins of the Inch:
:> :
:> : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inch
:> :
:> : Swedish: tum inch, tumme thumb; Dutch: duim inch, duim thumb;
:> : Sanskrit: Angulam inch, Anguli Finger.
:> :
:> : Given the etymology of the word "inch", it would seem that the inch
:> : is a unit derived from the foot, but this was probably only so in Latin
:> : and in Roman times. In English, there are records of precise
:> : definitions for the size of an inch (whereas the definitions for the
:> : size of a foot are probably anecdotal), so it seems that the foot was
:> : then defined as 12 times this length. For example, the old English
:> : ynche was defined (by King David I of Scotland in about 1150) as
:> : the width of an average man's thumb at the base of the nail, even
:> : including the requirement to calculate the average of a small, a
:> : medium, and a large man's measures. To account for the much
:> : larger length later called an inch, there are also attempts to link it
:> : to the distance between the tip of the thumb and the first joint of the
:> : thumb, but this may be speculation.
:> :
:> : There are records of the unit being used circa AD 1000 (both Laws
:> : of ?thelbert and Laws of ?lfred). An Anglo-Saxon unit of length was
:> : the barleycorn. After 1066, 3 barleycorn was equal to 1 inch; it is not
:> : clear which unit was the base unit and which the derived unit.
:> :
:> : One source says that the inch was at one time defined in terms of
:> : the yard, itself supposedly defined as the distance between Henry I
:> : of England's nose and his thumb. This is unlikely as Henry was born
:> : in 1068.
:> :
:> : Prior to the adoption of the international inch (see above), the United
:> : Kingdom and other countries of the Commonwealth of Nations defined
:> : the inch in terms of the Imperial Standard Yard. The United States
:> : and Canada each had their own, different, definition of the inch,
:> : defined in terms of metric units. The Canadian inch was defined to
:> : be equal to 25.4 millimeters.
:> :
:> : Wow! three barleycorns! You just can't get more accurate than that,
:> : right? Sure beats that Cesium thing.........NOT!
:> :
:> : Admit it Louis, you're just too effin' lazy & paranoid to change.
:>
:> Admit it Monika,you're just so dictatorial you demand change.
:> I consider definitions in terms of metric units to be inferior
:> no matter how deluded officialdom might be...but the historic
:> background of US Customary and Imperial units is a reason to
:> keep them,not to toss them!
:
: I don't demand change, but I do accept the fact that its inevitable.
: Life is dynamic, not static, and all your rantings to the contrary
: can't change that fact.
:
: Please cite examples of how the metric system is inferior to the
: Imperial system. Otherwise, your claim is just an unfounded rant.
Since the inferiorities of the metric system are precisely what
its advocates assert are its advantages,this discussion would be
a matter of talking past each other until you realize being
simplistic is BAD,not GOOD.
: When the entire world is "deluded", Louis, its time to have a LONG
: chat with your Shrink!
Only if I could find a qualified one.
: "Historic background" is not a rational reason to perpetuate outdated
: and inefficient technology. Even the Swiss Guard at the Vatican,
: while still shouldering pikes & sporting medieval livery for tradition's
: sake, carries fully automatic modern wepons & bulletproof vests!
The only things that REALLY matter matter BECAUSE they can NEVER
change.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
.
- References:
- Muggle midget in 5th film?
- From: Richard Fangnail
- Re: Muggle midget in 5th film?
- From: Monika
- Re: Muggle midget in 5th film?
- From: Louis Epstein
- OT: SI
- From: Dragon Rider
- Re: OT: SI
- From: Louis Epstein
- Re: OT: SI
- From: Monika
- Re: OT: SI
- From: Louis Epstein
- Re: OT: SI
- From: Monika
- Muggle midget in 5th film?
- Prev by Date: Re: What are peoples theories on what became of the Dursleys?
- Next by Date: Re: OT: SI
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: SI
- Next by thread: Re: Muggle midget in 5th film?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
