Metric vs Imperial

[Famine]

Our unit system doesn't have to be easily explainable to aliens - it just needs to make sense and be easy to use to us humans.

I don't know, I rather think it does. Removing all subjectivity from the equation* makes everything understandable from utterly raw, universal constants. An wholly objective measuring system. Makes me shiver like someone giving me a free Ford RS200.

I mean... we can't really get around the base problem unless it's shifted right to the simplest form of Base2. You don't even need to rely on aliens having fingers then - on/off state is the easiest thing in the universe to explain. But Base2 math is horrifying. I had to teach myself how to do mental arithmetic in binary and it actually hurt my brain.


Okay, so it's a bit of a tangent* and we might not meet them for a while yet, but it'll save vital seconds (Exaplancks?) of Richard Dreyfuss playing synth or Jack Nicholson Akking to get a line of communication going - and until then we have a completely objective way of measuring our universe.

*shivers again*


*MATHPUN!

The absolute worst part about english units is pound force vs pound mass (not to be confused with pound currency). Let's not re-use the same word for everything, it's confusing at the least, and dangerous at the worst.

Quite - though it's largely just convention. Pounds mass is lb and pounds-equivalent force (the amount of force needed to move a pound around) is lbf. People say pounds and pounds - and lb and lb - because they're used to it

It's actually one thing that bugs me with cars. Cars in Europe are largely sold with the PS unit (kgfm/s) for power but Nm for torque when kgfm should be used - while in Britain they still largely use the PS unit but have lbfft for torque, when hp (lbfft/s) should be used. And they're all sold with kW for power, because it's a legal requirement - any other unit can be used as accompaniment only - and I've no idea what should be used as torque for that. I hate the PS unit.

 

[Keef]

Spacecraft velocity is measured in km/s and regularly gets tweaked by mm/s.

Ridiculous idea. It wouldn't get tweaked by 1 mm/s, it would get tweaked by .000001 km/s. Changing units is asking for serious trouble because you still have to understand how many of the new units there are in the practical unit. Just stick with the practical unit and refine by fractions of that unit.

Most of American industry converts metric to standard units first, then does the work. Well, everybody without an ISO certification. This will probably change in the future as younger people get conned into manufacturing trades.

Switching American industry to a different standard of measurement would be like me learning German for a trip to Kentucky. Yeah, I know German now, but it's completely useless unless everybody else in Kentucky knows German as well. The cost/benefit of switching an entire society which is perfectly fluent in one standard to another standard is virtually non-existent.

 

[Antonisbob]

I prefer Imperial.

 

[Danoff]

I don't know, I rather think it does. Removing all subjectivity from the equation* makes everything understandable from utterly raw, universal constants. An wholly objective measuring system. Makes me shiver like someone giving me a free Ford RS200.

I understand the appeal, but I think this is one of those cases where better is the enemy of good - especially for time keeping. The unit of one day is very important to most humans. An objective time system would probably screw that up.

(Also, as you say, base 2 is rough)

Quite - though it's largely just convention. Pounds mass is lb and pounds-equivalent force (the amount of force needed to move a pound around) is lbf. People say pounds and pounds - and lb and lb - because they're used to it

It's so absurdly confusing because they're similar units with the same name. You can try to get around that by using slugs, but that will really get you some funny looks.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Terrible reason for just about anything.

Yes it's terrible because it happens to work for me specifically.

 

[Famine]

I always kick Newtons in the face for similar reasons. I know accelerations are forces but that doesn't make it any better!


Oddly, deprived of light cycles, people tend to adopt 26 hour days (and in fact people with light-sensing disorders do too), which would be fun on longer, manned space missions.

And space should also highlight the issue with our attachment to Earth-based time units. Knowing the length of an Earth day and year is of little use to folk who've settled on Mars, Europa or Gliese 667Cc - they'll need something new.


Anyway, binary's only a nutcramp because we're not used to it. It's quite pretty, really. Plus we get to have future generations blowing their hoop because we're about to run out of numbers in the calendar. It's a win-win!

 

[Danoff]

Yes it's terrible because it happens to work for me specifically.

Try to take a larger view of the conversation than just your own experience.

I always kick Newtons in the face for similar reasons. I know accelerations are forces but that doesn't make it any better!

Wait, what's wrong with newtons?

Oddly, deprived of light cycles, people tend to adopt 26 hour days (and in fact people with light-sensing disorders do too), which would be fun on longer, manned space missions.

Granted, but people still adopt the day/night cycle on earth for practical reasons. I still think it makes sense for our time system to key off of that.

And space should also highlight the issue with our attachment to Earth-based time units. Knowing the length of an Earth day and year is of little use to folk who've settled on Mars, Europa or Gliese 667Cc - they'll need something new.

They would need something new, but they're not likely to drop the Earth-based time system. They'd not need to suddenly adopt a new unit of force based on a second that is an even division of the Europa day. Earth is going to win for a very very long time. I think we should use earth day based units until we come to a point where it no longer makes sense.

Anyway, binary's only a nutcramp because we're not used to it. It's quite pretty, really. Plus we get to have future generations blowing their hoop because we're about to run out of numbers in the calendar. It's a win-win!

Good point.

But binary is still a pain even if you're used to it. Too many digits. It would have the advantage of allowing is to more easily interact with computers at a very basic level.

 

[Tornado]

Try to take a larger view of the conversation than just your own experience.

Try to take into consideration that he isn't wrong for having a personal preference. He said nothing more than what he likes to use and why he likes to use it. You're the one who is taking the lighthearted conversation and turning it into an explanation for why he is wrong.

 

[Danoff]

Try to take into consideration that he isn't wrong for having a personal preference. He said nothing more than what he likes to use and why he likes to use it. You're the one who is taking the lighthearted conversation and turning it into an explanation for why he is wrong.

Personal experience is only one component of a units system, a small component. The units that we use affect everyone in many ways. This is not a lighthearted conversation, billions of dollars have been lost to confusion over units. I'd even wager lives have been lost. It's not a discussion that can be boiled down to "it's what I'm used to so I like it". That's not as bad but similar in some ways to a middle eastern man saying "Women having absolutely zero civil rights is what I'm used to so I like it".

 

[Tornado]

This is not a lighthearted conversation, billions of dollars have been lost to confusion over units. I'd even wager lives have been lost.

Oh, 🤬. sunbrownkid maybe has been killing people by measuring height in feet and inches!? I'm gonna call the police right now!




It's all swell for your argument that there is some greater consequence when massive world undertakings fall apart because of the Imperial/Metric confusion. Perhaps take issue with that rather than someone saying "I like Imperial for height" as if the very act of having a preference different from the One True Objective Answer™ is some heinous thing needing to be corrected.

 

[Danoff]

Oh, 🤬. sunbrownkid has been killing people by measuring height in feet and inches! I'm gonna call the police right now!

Yes, that is precisely what I said. I'm glad your reading comprehension skills are top notch.

 

[Tornado]

So am I. Honors English and all that. Glad we got that settled.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Why don't we have names for certain things? Likes speed for instance... we use X per Y, why not give that unit a name? for instance "I'm doing 100 Clarksons!" rather than "I'm doing 100 miles per hour!"...

.. just a thought, sorry if it's too light hearted.

 

[Famine]

Perhaps take issue with that rather than someone saying "I like Imperial for height" as if the very act of having a preference different from the One True Objective Answer™ is some heinous thing needing to be corrected.

Which is interesting, 'cos I'm saying there should be an objective system and Dan's saying the ones we have are fine...

 

[DK]

I mean... we can't really get around the base problem unless it's shifted right to the simplest form of Base2. You don't even need to rely on aliens having fingers then - on/off state is the easiest thing in the universe to explain. But Base2 math is horrifying. I had to teach myself how to do mental arithmetic in binary and it actually hurt my brain.

Welcome to my world, at uni one of my subjects involves binary arithmetic.

 

[TyrrellRacing]

Why don't we have names for certain things? Likes speed for instance... we use X per Y, why not give that unit a name? for instance "I'm doing 100 Clarksons!" rather than "I'm doing 100 miles per hour!"...

.. just a thought, sorry if it's too light hearted.

Seeing as Newtons are used in place of kgms^-2, for instance, I don't actually see why not?

 

[Keef]

The only problem with having a name like Newtons for various multifaceted measurements is...well, wtf is a Newton? Oh yeah, it's kg(m/s^2). The only effective use for the name Newton is convenience while writing your report, though it makes no mathematical sense whatsoever. Yes, we have names like "inch" and "foot" but those are singular things, easily represented on a stick. Fit a Newton on a stick and I'll go weigh myself with it (yes I know that doesn't make sense because Newtons are dumb).

 

[Danoff]

I use milli-newtons on an almost daily basis. I have conversations with people where we discuss mN back and forth without batting an eye. Perfectly good unit.

 

[Keef]

I'll show you a perfectly good unit.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The metric system is no better for universal communication than the Imperial (or avoirdupois) system is.It doesn't seem arbitrary to base a fundamental measurement on an arbitrary subdivision of an (incorrect) estimate of an arbitrary measurement on an arbitrary planetary body?

You're going to have to explain to aliens that the entire measuring system is based on that. When the flaw's pointed out, you can fall back on the distance light travels in one 299,792,458th of a second (let's assume you've got over the second hurdle above), then try to tell them why you picked that number and how that's somehow the most regular one you could come up with.Why water? Arbitrary - and wrong the instant you move up orders of magnitude, because the kilogram (which is the base unit) is defined as 1.000025 litres (arbitrary) of water (arbitrary) at 4 degrees Celsius (arbitrary). One tonne (which should be one megagram if we're being all regular like) is 1000.025 litres - or rather 1.000025 cubic metres since litres aren't regular either.Until you reach the very small - or very large - numbers that define them and it all breaks down.

The raw definitions of the SI base units of metres, kilograms and moles aren't based on a 10/100/1000 multiple of anything, but on the properties of arbitrarily chosen items (light over an arbitrary time, water, septillions of atoms). The second - which isn't metric and forms the basis of several other SI base units - is based on the properties of an arbitrarily chosen item (the regularity of Caesium atom oscillation). The Kelvin is based on a scale that's based on the properties of an arbitrarily chosen item (water)...

And, as previously discussed with GT Ace, not everything is a multiple of 10/100/1000 anyway. We still have to divide circles up into sixties and time up into a mix of sevens, nearly-thirties and multiples of six. We stick with this simply because we're used to it. On this basis, we can't denigrate USians for sticking to avoirdupois simply because they're used to it.

Seems to me if you are going to pick something arbitrary to base a system on, the circumference of the planet you live on is a pretty good choice. Better than the size of a King's thumb or foot isn't it? I would assume they chose water to determine mass because it covers 70% of said planet, arbitrary yes, but again if you're going to pick abitrary, water seems a good choice.

 

[XoravaX]

I mostly use metric measurements, from the imperial system I use (British) horsepower (BHP, German PS is slightly different) while having discussions about cars; sometimes I use inches too.

The only problem with having a name like Newtons for various multifaceted measurements is...well, wtf is a Newton? Oh yeah, it's kg(m/s^2). The only effective use for the name Newton is convenience while writing your report, though it makes no mathematical sense whatsoever. Yes, we have names like "inch" and "foot" but those are singular things, easily represented on a stick. Fit a Newton on a stick and I'll go weigh myself with it (yes I know that doesn't make sense because Newtons are dumb).

A Newton is approximately the force you need to apply to hold a 100 gram (0.1 kg) weight (while standing on Earth).

More precisely, it's just that 1 kg(m/s^2), but because the gravity of Earth creates an acceleration of around 9.80(m/s^2), and you have the force of one Newton, you get the following equation (where X is the weight):

X*9.80(m/s^2) = 1(kg(m/s^2))
X = 1(kg(m/s^2))/9.80(m/s^2)
X = 0.1020kg
X = 102.0g

approximately 100 grams.

It just sounds abstract, but it isn't that difficult.

 

[Famine]

Seems to me if you are going to pick something arbitrary to base a system on, the circumference of the planet you live on is a pretty good choice. Better than the size of a King's thumb or foot isn't it?

Is it?

The king's foot doesn't change if you land on a different planet. You don't have to send surveyors 10,000km to check your king's foot and divide it into ten billionths. They're much of a muchness to me.

I would assume they chose water to determine mass because it covers 70% of said planet, arbitrary yes, but again if you're going to pick abitrary, water seems a good choice.

Except water's actually quite rare on the planet - it only exists in a thin layer on top of the crust, and nowhere else in the five thousand mile wide ball of iron-based rock. Also it's not the water that's on the planet. It's a special kind where even one atom of something else throws the measurement out of whack. And it's at a temperature that isn't "normal" for the planet either (which averages about twelve Celsius).

As I said, I've got no real preference for either. They're both arbitrary in root definition and both have their flaws in the inability to scale easily in Imperial (is 20 inches one order of magnitude higher than 2 inches, or is 2 feet one order of magnitude higher?) and inability to third, sixth, seventh and ninth easily in metric.


Also I live in a country where we say how hot it is in Farenheit and how cold it is in Celsius.

 

[Carbonox]

I use metric everywhere. I can't read imperial units, so I'm just lucky to have my calculator around in case I'm getting a GT5 setup and the tranny top speed is in miles per hour.

 

[Liquid]

Also I live in a country where we say how hot it is in Fahrenheit and how cold it is in Celsius.

Do we? I find that only idiots do this.

I have absolutely and unequivocally only ever used Celsius.

 

[Grayfox]

Also I live in a country where we say how hot it is in Farenheit and how cold it is in Celsius.

You also measure speed in km/h and fuel economy in MPG.

 

[Famine]

It's my age. In fact it's usually folk between 45 and 65 doing this, but I am excessively old compared to my chronological age, thanks to my parents being 48 when I was 10...

You also measure speed in km/h and fuel economy in MPG.

No, we measure speed in mph and road distance in miles - with fuel economy in mpg.

But we buy fuel in litres.

 

[Liquid]

You also measure speed in km/h and fuel economy in MPG.

No, we measure speed in miles per hour, fuel economy in miles per gallon but we sell fuel in litres.

Which is odd, I know.

Edit: Treed by the Famster.

 

[Famine]

Psyche

It's an easy conversion though. Two to nine - 2 gallons is 9 litres*. 40 litres is thus "nearly 9 gallons". I'd call it 8.8 in my head, then divide my mileage by 8 and lop ten percent off the result and round. 300 miles with 40 litres would be 34mpg (300/9 = 37.5, less 10% is 33.8, rounding to 34) - while the calculator says 34.1mpg.

Close enough.

*Imperial, not US Imperial

 

[Grayfox]

It's my age. In fact it's usually folk between 45 and 65 doing this, but I am excessively old compared to my chronological age, thanks to my parents being 48 when I was 10...No, we measure speed in mph and road distance in miles - with fuel economy in mpg.

But we buy fuel in litres.

LoL knew it was one of those car things.

 

[Liquid]

Who needs Dr. Kawashima's Brain Training, eh?