METRIC OR IMPERIAL

Anonus

TELL ME YOUR ALLEGIANCE

I've always used Imperial units and am used to them, so I approach the notion of switching to Metric with hesitation...

Obā-san

Tre

metric

because Emily Haines

Princess Alice

Metric

Previous Calica

while I use imperial in day-to-day life, metric is better

Salix Babylonika

I like metric from a "which is better?" point of view, but I think in Imperial due to having grown up in a society that uses it exclusively, so I find it difficult to wrap my brain around metric units.

so...both? Neither?

nohaynicklibre

Metric.
t. civilized man

Fossilmaiden

Both, by virtue of living in England. :P

Sredni Vashtar

Both, depending on the circumstances, although I prefer imperial for aesthetic reasons.

Section42L

Fossilmaiden said:

Both, by virtue of living in England. :P

This, only replace England with Canada.

Hexartes

Sredni Vashtar said:

Both, depending on the circumstances, although I prefer imperial for aesthetic reasons.

Yeah, me too.

I was going to make a TES pun but it would have been a bit forced.

Imipolex G

My upbringing has trained me to use Imperial, although I admit metric makes more sense

Miss Miko Mayonegg

What he said. :) I think metric is way better.

Hexartes

Metric isn't very useful in my daily life. Imperial measurements tend to correspond more closely to actual things.

Justice4243

Kinda echoing what most people have said here.

That being said, feet is a pretty useful unit of measurement that metric doesn't really have a great alternativeto.

Princess Alice

I can understand a preference for feet/inches, since 12 is a very easy number to work with--it's divisible by 2, 3, 4, and 6, while 10 is only divisible by 2 and 5.

That said, I still prefer meters and the like, as I find that whatever convenience comes with the number 12 is negated when you have to work with increments smaller than one inch and are forced to use hideous fractions like 7/16 and 5/8.

nohaynicklibre

Justice42 said:

Kinda echoing what most people have said here.

That being said, feet is a pretty useful unit of measurement that metric doesn't really have a great alternativeto.

Centimeters

Salix Babylonika

Regular meters, more like.

centimetres are more like inches.

nohaynicklibre

Isn't a feet the equivalent to 30 cm. ? I guess for bigger units you could use meters.

Miss Miko Mayonegg

It is so stupid though. Hay guize, said a king or queen in the ancient dinosaur time, how shall we measure how much taller I am than my subjects? I know, what if like we stack a bunch of feets on top of each other, and the person with the most feets is the tallest?

Justice4243

A regular meter is close to three times the size of a foot, so pretty big difference between two meters and three meters. So feet can by pretty useful if you're say...dealing with things that are between one and ten feet.

As far as the arbitrary nature is concerned, I think what's arbitrary is the amount of inches in a foot, the amount of feet in a mile, etc...

It's not like a meter or a centimeter is some sort of magic length that we got when a deity told us how to measure things. 

Previous Calica

IIRC, the meter was chosen so that the circumference of the Earth would be 40000 km.  Of course, it's not perfect, since the Earth isn't perfectly spherical, and the current definition of the meter actually defines it in terms of the second using the speed of light.

Sredni Vashtar

Central Avenue said:

I can understand a preference for feet/inches, since 12 is a very easy number to work with--it's divisible by 2, 3, 4, and 6, while 10 is only divisible by 2 and 5.

That said, I still prefer meters and the like, as I find that whatever convenience comes with the number 12 is negated when you have to work with increments smaller than one inch and are forced to use hideous fractions like 7/16 and 5/8.

By the same token, 1/16th is easier to visualise than 1/20th: It is simply a quarter of a quarter, each of which are in turn simply half of a half. Fifths are much more irksome to imagine. This is also applicable to imperial weights like pounds and ounces.

In scientific terms, however, metres are more convenient and sensible.

Sredni Vashtar

Also, the number of feet in a mile is pretty great for dividing into relatively small numbers. 5280 is divisible by 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 20, 22 and 24 without dividing the foot.

Princess Alice

Sredni Vashtar said:

By the same token, 1/16th is easier to visualise than 1/20th: It is simply a quarter of a quarter, each of which are in turn simply half of a half. Fifths are much more irksome to imagine. This is also applicable to imperial weights like pounds and ounces.

This is very true. I'd been thinking more of calculations, since it's almost always simpler to add and subtract straight-up decimals than it is to fumble with fractions.

Sredni Vashtar said:

Also, the number of feet in a mile is pretty great for dividing into relatively small numbers. 5280 is divisible by 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 20, 22 and 24 without dividing the foot.

Heh, you've reminded me of something vaguely relevant: for one of the resurfacing projects around here, they posted a sign that says "ROAD WORK: NEXT 4.07 MILES"

Like, really, you couldn't find an acceptable way to round that?

Justice4243

spinor said:

IIRC, the meter was chosen so that the circumference of the Earth would be 40000 km.  Of course, it's not perfect, since the Earth isn't perfectly spherical, and the current definition of the meter actually defines it in terms of the second using the speed of light.

40,000 seems kinda arbitrary. I mean, it's divisible by 10 and all and has lots of zeros, but it begins with a 4 for some reason.

Princess Alice

I thought the same thing at first, but then I realized that 40,000 km also allows a meter to be roughly analogous to one yard.

Justice4243

I suppose, but 100,000 would make much closer to a foot.

Miss Miko Mayonegg

"The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second."

That seems really arbitrary...

Previous Calica

40000 was because the actual measurement was that the distance from the North Pole to the Equator through Paris should be 10000 km.

Hexartes

Miko said:

"The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second."

That seems really arbitrary...

Is there really any non arbitrary way to create a unit of measurement?

Justice4243

spinor said:

40000 was because the actual measurement was that the distance from the North Pole to the Equator through Paris should be 10000 km.

So, instead of some Royalty making shit up, we have some French math nerd dictating how we measure things. :P

Previous Calica

Kexruct said:

Miko said:

"The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second."

That seems really arbitrary...

Is there really any non arbitrary way to create a unit of measurement?

The Planck units...probably.

Justice4243

I thought Celsius was pretty non-arbitray given how much frickin' water we have around.

Sredni Vashtar

Fahrenheit was oriented around the same principles, but the numbers were counted out differently to make the production of glass thermometers easier. It's a bit of a long story...

Miss Miko Mayonegg

I thought Celsius was pretty non-arbitray given how much frickin' water we have around.

*shrugs in the rain near the ocean* It's not -that- much, is it?

Previous Calica

Justice42 said:I thought Celsius was pretty non-arbitray given how much frickin' water we have around.

On Earth, sure. ;)

Justice4243

Maybe we should make a metric based on absolute zero and figure out how hot things can get.

Course, we're screwed if we somehow figure out something colder or warmer...

Sredni Vashtar

Kelvin is based on absolute zero.

Previous Calica

There's a Planck temperature around which we can no longer make physical predictions because we lack a theory of quantum gravity.

And Kelvin is just Celsius shifted such that zero is absolute zero.

There actually are systems that can achieve temperature below negative zero in certain circumstances but the physics of them are so different from regular positive-temperature physics that zero still has a fundamental place as, well, zero.

Justice4243

Sredni Vashtar said:

Kelvin is based on absolute zero.

BUT HOW HOT CAN WE GO?!

SOMEONE SEND AN ASTRONAUT TO THE HOTTEST SUN AND HAVE THEM TELL US!

Justice4243

Or "star" I guess.

Miss Miko Mayonegg

It can probably get infinitely hot, or reach some kind of hot singularity where there is so much heat energy that it couldn't be measured. Kind of like how there is zero weight but there is no practical limit to weight.

Justice4243

Also, gravity is sort of not constant depending on where you go.

I don't think the universe WANTS us to have non-arbitrarily defined units of measurements. 

Miss Miko Mayonegg

Perhaps not. :o

Hexartes

Well, when you consider that heat is related to movement of molecules, wouldn't that mean the maximum heat is when they're going at light speed?

Aliroz

I don't want the places to convert to Metric, because we need diversity and culture, not homogenization.

We don't all have to use the same weights and measures.

We lose something very precious when we homogenize into universal measurements.

Previous Calica

Eh, while diversity and culture are nice, weights and measures are so arbitrary and have so little cultural value that standardization is pretty much always a plus.

Aliroz

The more ways there are to measure, the better. What is an irrational amount of weight in one unit may be rational in another.

Justice4243

MY CAR WEIGHS THE SAME AS 50,000 TACOS, TACOS IS NOW THE NEW WEIGHT STANDARD! 

Aliroz

Yes, see how awesome that is!