09-13-2010, 08:37 PM
Hi,
What is so hard to understand here? To reiterate: What you seem to be missing is that there is a difference between the metric system and the practical systems based on the metric system. The cgs systems, the MKS system, the Rational MKSA system, and SI are all attempts to make something useful out of a bunch of poorly chosen units. They are all based on the original metric system. None of them uses all three basic units as originally defined by that system.
My point in this is simple. The base units were so poorly chosen that no practical system has ever been based directly on them. That's what I'm saying, nothing more, nothing less.
Yes, that is exactly right. I have no problem with using any convenient and familiar unit. I am not calling for the abolition of the metric system (although its replacement with something more useful would not be amiss). I am simply pointing out that those who call for the abolition of all non-metric systems because the metric system is so great are ignorant of the system they champion. They are mistaking familiarity with superiority.
That is on the level of 'the barber is a woman'. Cute.
I do not insist that water doesn't freeze and boil at those temperatures on the Celsius scale, that would be foolish. That's the definition of those temperatures. I simply say that it is an arbitrary definition, of little intrinsic value. Indeed a poor definition. Consider the parallels: we define 273 meters to be the zero of length. Call the new unit the retem. So, if you're two meters tall, your height would be -271 retems. If you find that ludicrous, then how can you find Celsius not? If you don't find that ludicrous . . . then . . .
Again, you are missing my main point. Why should we give up a system of units which we do indeed use consistently, which cover our needs from the smallest to the largest, which evolved from necessity and convenience and replace it with a system who's users do not use consistently and correctly, which does not cover from the smallest to the largest, and which was arbitrarily defined by a bunch of ivory towered individuals with little or no understanding of the practical?
As an aside, notice that from yotta to yocto is 48 orders of magnitude. From the solar mass unit to the atomic mass unit is 57. One size fits all, but sometimes only if it rips.
I have no problem with people using whatever system they want. Just like I have no (well, little) problem with people having whatever religion they want. I have a problem with people shoving their units or their faith down my throat.
--Pete
(09-13-2010, 07:37 PM)Jester Wrote: From your link:
Quote:...a gram is now defined as one one-thousandth of the SI base unit, the kilogram...
What is so hard to understand here? To reiterate: What you seem to be missing is that there is a difference between the metric system and the practical systems based on the metric system. The cgs systems, the MKS system, the Rational MKSA system, and SI are all attempts to make something useful out of a bunch of poorly chosen units. They are all based on the original metric system. None of them uses all three basic units as originally defined by that system.
My point in this is simple. The base units were so poorly chosen that no practical system has ever been based directly on them. That's what I'm saying, nothing more, nothing less.
(09-13-2010, 07:37 PM)Jester Wrote: This seems a touch stringent. Nobody uses the metric system rigorously, exclusively, and instinctively. But then, nobody uses any other system that way either.
Yes, that is exactly right. I have no problem with using any convenient and familiar unit. I am not calling for the abolition of the metric system (although its replacement with something more useful would not be amiss). I am simply pointing out that those who call for the abolition of all non-metric systems because the metric system is so great are ignorant of the system they champion. They are mistaking familiarity with superiority.
(09-13-2010, 07:37 PM)Jester Wrote: . . . and I know the torque of my car in a precise, unitless way - zero anythings, because I don't own one.
That is on the level of 'the barber is a woman'. Cute.
(09-13-2010, 07:37 PM)Jester Wrote: Much like your insistence about water not technically freezing at 0 or boiling at 100, . . .
I do not insist that water doesn't freeze and boil at those temperatures on the Celsius scale, that would be foolish. That's the definition of those temperatures. I simply say that it is an arbitrary definition, of little intrinsic value. Indeed a poor definition. Consider the parallels: we define 273 meters to be the zero of length. Call the new unit the retem. So, if you're two meters tall, your height would be -271 retems. If you find that ludicrous, then how can you find Celsius not? If you don't find that ludicrous . . . then . . .
(09-13-2010, 07:37 PM)Jester Wrote: . . . it seems like a distinction which is philosophically sound, but has very little application outside of hard science. Just because it's not being used perfectly, doesn't mean it's not being used.
Again, you are missing my main point. Why should we give up a system of units which we do indeed use consistently, which cover our needs from the smallest to the largest, which evolved from necessity and convenience and replace it with a system who's users do not use consistently and correctly, which does not cover from the smallest to the largest, and which was arbitrarily defined by a bunch of ivory towered individuals with little or no understanding of the practical?
As an aside, notice that from yotta to yocto is 48 orders of magnitude. From the solar mass unit to the atomic mass unit is 57. One size fits all, but sometimes only if it rips.
I have no problem with people using whatever system they want. Just like I have no (well, little) problem with people having whatever religion they want. I have a problem with people shoving their units or their faith down my throat.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?