Why the metric system is wrong

Andrew_Pakula · 12-02-2002, 07:40 PM

hmm.....

http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/book...ure/index.html

Cactuar · 12-02-2002, 07:44 PM

gotta admit though, the metric system makes the most sense

Samsa · 12-02-2002, 08:04 PM

you know what gets my goat? time. i mean wtf? who decided how long a second is. it creeps me out.

StillBecomingApart · 12-02-2002, 08:16 PM

I smell bullshit

Lie · 12-02-2002, 08:17 PM

Oh, and the U.S. standard system of measurement isn't completely arbitrary?

scouse_dave · 12-03-2002, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Samsa
you know what gets my goat? time. i mean wtf? who decided how long a second is. it creeps me out.

that's like saying "OMG, who decided how long a metre is?"

it's a definition...(originating from changes in sunlight time during the day i'm guessing)...

we essentially created the notion of time

DeviousJ · 12-03-2002, 03:46 PM

Heh, who cares how arbitrary it is? It's easier to work with given that it doesn't change bases every time you increase the scale, and that's all that matters. Isn't the metre based on the length of a block of metal in France? And I don't normally care about spelling... but it's metre - it's a French word. It's not the meteric system

skippy · 12-03-2002, 03:51 PM

Bottom line: the metric system may have its flaws, historically speaking, however it is vastly superior to the medieval system we continue to cling to here in the U.S.

THRILLHO · 12-03-2002, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Samsa
you know what gets my goat? time. i mean wtf? who decided how long a second is. it creeps me out.

you DO realize that the reference point is the time is the amount of time of one rotation of earth and a second is 1/60th of 1/60th of that amount of time...
although, yeah, it's weird that no one knows who really decided the units to be 60ths and not 170ths or whatever. there aren't any howstuffworks.com articles on it or anything.

Samsa · 12-03-2002, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by THRILLHO

you DO realize that the reference point is the time is the amount of time of one rotation of earth and a second is 1/60th of 1/60th of that amount of time...
although, yeah, it's weird that no one knows who really decided the units to be 60ths and not 170ths or whatever. there aren't any howstuffworks.com articles on it or anything.

oh really?

actually which civilization. i think it was actually the mesopotamians who first like divided time up into units of 60 but i forget

Samsa · 12-03-2002, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Samsa

oh really?

actually which civilization. i think it was actually the mesopotamians who first like divided time up into units of 60 but i forget

oh dammit. erase the 'oh really'

duh the reference point is one rotation of the eraty

seriously. how stupid do you thhink i am

scouse_dave · 12-03-2002, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by THRILLHO
you DO realize that the reference point is the time is the amount of time of one rotation of earth and a second is 1/60th of 1/60th of that amount of time...

that'd be an hour surely?

it's 1/60th of 1/60th of 1/24th of sunrise-sunrise

Injektilo · 12-03-2002, 04:18 PM

Iwas reading about time keeping last night while killing time (hahaa.....ah) and I read that the scientific definition of a second now days is the amount of time it takes for a certain element (cesium 133 I think it was) to uh... hmmm ....
ok, to google :

Whereas seconds counted by the Earth's rotation are never identical, atomic seconds are--always. In 1967, the 13th General Conference of Weights and Measures formally redefined the second as "9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium-133 atom."

there, thats what a seond is

THRILLHO · 12-03-2002, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Samsa

duh the reference point is one rotation of the eraty seriously. how stupid do you thhink i am

well, you just missed spelled earth as eraty... heh heh.
maybe you were trying to spell planet? who can tell!

and yeah, dave just corrected me. whoop.

i think we should convert to metric time.
every day consist of 1000 metric hours, which each consist of 100 metric micro-hours. and days are just called kilo-hours. sounds good to me.

17 Seconds · 12-03-2002, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Samsa

oh really?

actually which civilization. i think it was actually the mesopotamians who first like divided time up into units of 60 but i forget

You are correct. I did a paper on this in college. The Mesopotamians used a base 6 system rather than a base 10 system used by almost everyone today. 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour rather than 100 seconds in a minute and 100 minutes in an hour.

DeviousJ · 12-03-2002, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by THRILLHO
i think we should convert to metric time.
every day consist of 1000 metric hours, which each consist of 100 metric micro-hours. and days are just called kilo-hours. sounds good to me.

I'm afraid the Swatch Corporation is way ahead of you Markus. Say, anyone have the Time®?

12-03-2002, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Samsa
you know what gets my goat?

heh, i say "curdles my milk".

killed radio star · 12-03-2002, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DeviousJ
Heh, who cares how arbitrary it is? It's easier to work with given that it doesn't change bases every time you increase the scale, and that's all that matters. Isn't the metre based on the length of a block of metal in France? And I don't normally care about spelling... but it's metre - it's a French word. It's not the meteric system

i belive the standard is some huge amount of wavelengths of a certain laser.

tear stained glass · 12-03-2002, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by killed radio star
i belive the standard is some huge amount of wavelengths of a certain laser.

Actually, I think it's only like 93.something of krypton gas. Lemme look it up.

"Krypton
For fluorescent bulbs.

Atomic Number: 36
Atomic Symbol: Kr
Atomic Weight: 83.80
Electron Configuration: [Ar]4s23d104p6

History
(Gr. kryptos, hidden) Discovered in 1898 by Ramsay and Travers in the residue left after liquid air had nearly boiled away. In 1960 it was internationally agreed that the fundamental unit of length, the meter, should be defined in terms of the orange-red spectral line of 86Kr. This replaced the standard meter of Paris, which was defined in terms of a bar made of a platinum-iridium alloy. In October 1983 the meter, which originally was defined as being one ten millionth of a quadrant of the earth's polar circumference, was again redefined by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures as being the length of a path traveled by light in a vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second. "

http://pearl1.lanl.gov/periodic/elements/36.html

Ok, so I was kind of wrong.

DeviousJ · 12-03-2002, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by killed radio star

i belive the standard is some huge amount of wavelengths of a certain laser.

Consider length. The metre was defined in 1799 as one ten-millionth of the great-circle distance from the north pole to Earth's equator. It was redefined in 1889 as the length of a rod of precious-metal alloy, measurable to a micrometre (0.000 001 m) and kept in a Parisian vault. As metrology achieved sub-micrometre measurements, the metre was again redefined in 1960 as a certain number of wavelengths of visible light from energetic krypton atoms. Today, with the advent of lasers as more stable light sources, the metre's definition is based on Einstein's absolute: the speed of light in a vacuum. Now length metrology to tens of nanometres is routine at most national labs, and nanometre measurement is common.

Guess I'm not keeping up with current events!

BeautifulLoser · 12-04-2002, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DeviousJ

Consider length. The metre was defined in 1799 as one ten-millionth of the great-circle distance from the north pole to Earth's equator. It was redefined in 1889 as the length of a rod of precious-metal alloy, measurable to a micrometre (0.000 001 m) and kept in a Parisian vault. As metrology achieved sub-micrometre measurements, the metre was again redefined in 1960 as a certain number of wavelengths of visible light from energetic krypton atoms. Today, with the advent of lasers as more stable light sources, the metre's definition is based on Einstein's absolute: the speed of light in a vacuum. Now length metrology to tens of nanometres is routine at most national labs, and nanometre measurement is common.

Guess I'm not keeping up with current events!

Seeing the word "metrology" when i'm not at work makes me cringe.

I wish I could remember this crap from school... there's a standard for 10 MHz, it's the measurement of the period of a sine wave, but I'll be damned if I remember where the hell the sinewave comes from.

Someone probably said it already, and I just don't have the attention span to look through it all. Feh.

Ketchup · 12-04-2002, 01:42 AM

why do you all care so much? i mean... it's measurement for fucks sake! get over the whole "omg this one's better than the other one"... get a job and a life

12-02-2002, 07:40 PM	#1
Andrew_Pakula Fine! I'll go make my own web site. With Blackjack, and Hookers... Actually, forget the web site. Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 3,809	Why the metric system is wrong hmm..... http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/book...ure/index.html

12-03-2002, 03:51 PM	#8
skippy Apocalyptic Poster Location: NJ Posts: 4,096	Bottom line: the metric system may have its flaws, historically speaking, however it is vastly superior to the medieval system we continue to cling to here in the U.S. __________________ Daddy, I want another pony.

12-02-2002, 07:44 PM	#2
Cactuar Apocalyptic Poster Location: ur pants lol Posts: 2,915	gotta admit though, the metric system makes the most sense

12-02-2002, 08:04 PM	#3
Samsa Banned Location: A theater near you Posts: 7,929	you know what gets my goat? time. i mean wtf? who decided how long a second is. it creeps me out.

12-02-2002, 08:16 PM	#4
StillBecomingApart I'M FROM ITALY Location: Back the tape up. I need it again! Let it roll! Just as high as the fucker can go! And when it comes to that fantastic note where the rabbit bites its own head off, I want you to THROW THAT FUCKING RADIO INTO THE TUB WITH ME! Posts: 4,355	I smell bullshit

12-02-2002, 08:17 PM	#5
Lie Socialphobic Location: Goin' out West where they'll appreciate me Posts: 10,001	Oh, and the U.S. standard system of measurement isn't completely arbitrary?

12-03-2002, 03:46 PM	#7
DeviousJ CORNFROST Location: GUREITO DESU YO Posts: 24,891	Heh, who cares how arbitrary it is? It's easier to work with given that it doesn't change bases every time you increase the scale, and that's all that matters. Isn't the metre based on the length of a block of metal in France? And I don't normally care about spelling... but it's metre - it's a French word. It's not the meteric system

12-03-2002, 04:18 PM	#13
Injektilo twenty some years.... Location: the isle of the cheetah Posts: 5,066	Iwas reading about time keeping last night while killing time (hahaa.....ah) and I read that the scientific definition of a second now days is the amount of time it takes for a certain element (cesium 133 I think it was) to uh... hmmm .... ok, to google : Whereas seconds counted by the Earth's rotation are never identical, atomic seconds are--always. In 1967, the 13th General Conference of Weights and Measures formally redefined the second as "9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium-133 atom." there, thats what a seond is

12-04-2002, 01:42 AM	#22
Ketchup Apocalyptic Poster Location: Muskegon, MI Posts: 2,469	why do you all care so much? i mean... it's measurement for fucks sake! get over the whole "omg this one's better than the other one"... get a job and a life