Slightly off topic, but I have a coworker who is not as much of a fan of the metric system as others I know.
His main issue was that the metric system is based off of things heavily linked to our planet (like involving water at atmospheric pressure). How hard would it be to reproduce the metric measurements on the moon, for example?
Except for the kilogram (which still is an actual sphere in a vault in Paris somewhere, but hopefully not for long) all base units are defined so that they don’t require the context of Earth or a specific object or anything like that.
A meter, for example, is defined as “the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second”.
to @rtpg's point though. The kilogram (until it ceases being tied to that object) would weigh a less on the moon. You could still call that a "kilogram" but there'd be an easy argument that on the moon a kilogram would have to be much more to weigh the same.
I remember hearing about how 1L of water weighs 1kg or something like that and that that was one of the links between SI units, but the definitions seem to be different.
They are defined that way now, yes. But those are retrofitted universal-constant definitions chosen for their equivalence to the arbitrary things-on-earth definitions originally used. There is nothing intuitive or natural or universal about 1/299792458, for example, to suggest it as a good basis for a unit of distance, other than "that's really close to the original arbitrary length of the meter".
Why would that be something you want of a base unit?! You make no sense. That would be a property of a unit without a benefit.
That would be intellectual masturbation, nothing actually useful, and certainly not a worthwhile criticism of the metric system …
People who say this about the metric system should get off their imperial addiction already. Or die of old age eventually and not teach their kids this bullshit so that we can live in peace.
Yes, but that criticism was not the basis of the argument he responded to, which he perfectly addressed. Try to think of a way to define a unit of measurement that isn't either volatile or completely arbitrary.
Besides, I think that the really useful part of the metric system is that the metric prefixes intuitively make sense when expressed in decimal, and it's clearly expressed from, say, 100143.796 meters, how many millimeters, centimeters, decimeters, meters and kilometers it is. You could say the same thing about inches, feet, yards and miles, but usually I see a combination of those units of varying ratios rather than kiloyards or megainches.
And yet base 10 is pretty arbitrary. It's not just tied to human anatomy, it's tied to a particular non-universal way of interpreting human anatomy.
Granted, I don't really care much one way or the other -- I think metric is more useful for scientific/mathematical/engineering/etc. applications and some of the old imperial units are more useful for things like cooking, and tend to recommend people use whatever's most practical for their task -- but it's hard to escape the impression that metric is an arbitrary system trying to retrofit claims of non-arbitrariness.
I think that you are missing my point. I'm saying that not being arbitrary is too much to ask for from a practically useful system of measure, but what the metric system has going for it is that it is at least consistent with itself.
> but it's hard to escape the impression that metric is an arbitrary system trying to retrofit claims of non-arbitrariness.
I'd like to see any of these claims of non-arbitrariness. I have managed to escape them. The point of redefining the unit in terms of some universal constant is not to avoid arbitrariness but to avoid the inherent volatility of defining it in terms of something which is not constant and not easily reproducible outside earth. No one is arguing that 1/29979245 isn't a completely arbitrary number.
To clarify: that sphere is not a 'standard' in a sense that it is going to definite a kilogram. It is a tool which is going to be used to measure the correct numbers to define the kilogram in terms of universal constants. In this sense it is very different from the 'bells' you refer to, and I think the way you stated the link was misleading.
Interestingly, the Fahrenheit temperature scale was set up because it's easy to calibrate independently of the boiling/freezing points of things at specific atmospheric pressure. A 1:1:1 mixture of ice, water and ammonium chloride will self-stabilize at a consistent temperature; that temperature is the zero point of the Fahrenheit scale. Fahrenheit also wanted the freezing point of water at 32 and human body temperature at 96 for easy marking on a thermometer (64 degrees between the two, easy to mark off halves and get the full scale).
"Dividing a metre in to ten like this is much more helpful when measuring long distances than seeing hundreds and hundreds of centimetres but this unit doesn’t really exist with its own name."
Actually, it does, it's called the decimeter.
The other complaints in that post sound like faults in the design of measuring tapes, rather than faults in the meter itself. IMO, the best argument in favor of the imperial system is that you get more prime factors, so e.g. feet can be easily divided into 2, 3, 4, or 6 equal parts without using fractions. This is less important when one has access to decimal calculators.
An interesting point is that the meter is off by 0.2%. Not bad you might think, but compare it to the Summerian Kù of 51.85cm of the copper of Nippur and its derived unit SAR of 3600 Kù being 1866.6 meter being only 0.77% off from an arc second of the meridian.
Those ancient scientist did know the square root of 2 and PI by 4 sexagesimal figures. Thats better then IEEE floating point single precision! They did calculate the size of the earth being only 0.77% off the real value.
All this wisdom was lost 333BC, when Alexander destroyed civilization, installed femicide and women segreation, that is still cursing middle eat. Later the Greeks claimed parts of recovered ancient math as their own. So we now know the names of Greek copycats like Pythagoras, but not the names of those who really discovered this wisdom.
It had been most likely a female name, because reading, writing, math had been typical women skills at that time.
As an artist, and armchair historian I would LOVE to hear more. I don't require cheque out sources even, I just want to hear more. Mesopotamian history is my favorite period.
By the way, a really interesting documentary on the expedition (and Méchain's error) exists, though maybe not in English. It's been aired on Arte (and probably ZDF in Germany):
Worth noting that we're really meter-based in the US too. The legal inch is a defined quantity based on the meter. Many modern measuring devices such as the position encoders on machine tools use "whatever" units internally, that are converted by software to inches or mm for display.
(Written after looking for a #29 drill for tapping #8-32 threads for an electrical terminal fitting 14 gauge wire.)
29 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 74.4 ms ] threadHis main issue was that the metric system is based off of things heavily linked to our planet (like involving water at atmospheric pressure). How hard would it be to reproduce the metric measurements on the moon, for example?
A meter, for example, is defined as “the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second”.
The weight of a kilogram would change depending on your gravity. That happens on earth too, just at a smaller scale.
That would be intellectual masturbation, nothing actually useful, and certainly not a worthwhile criticism of the metric system …
People who say this about the metric system should get off their imperial addiction already. Or die of old age eventually and not teach their kids this bullshit so that we can live in peace.
Besides, I think that the really useful part of the metric system is that the metric prefixes intuitively make sense when expressed in decimal, and it's clearly expressed from, say, 100143.796 meters, how many millimeters, centimeters, decimeters, meters and kilometers it is. You could say the same thing about inches, feet, yards and miles, but usually I see a combination of those units of varying ratios rather than kiloyards or megainches.
Granted, I don't really care much one way or the other -- I think metric is more useful for scientific/mathematical/engineering/etc. applications and some of the old imperial units are more useful for things like cooking, and tend to recommend people use whatever's most practical for their task -- but it's hard to escape the impression that metric is an arbitrary system trying to retrofit claims of non-arbitrariness.
I think that you are missing my point. I'm saying that not being arbitrary is too much to ask for from a practically useful system of measure, but what the metric system has going for it is that it is at least consistent with itself.
> but it's hard to escape the impression that metric is an arbitrary system trying to retrofit claims of non-arbitrariness.
I'd like to see any of these claims of non-arbitrariness. I have managed to escape them. The point of redefining the unit in terms of some universal constant is not to avoid arbitrariness but to avoid the inherent volatility of defining it in terms of something which is not constant and not easily reproducible outside earth. No one is arguing that 1/29979245 isn't a completely arbitrary number.
(side note: that video is about a sphere, but the current standard kilogram and its copies are actually shaped like little bells)
Actually, it does, it's called the decimeter.
The other complaints in that post sound like faults in the design of measuring tapes, rather than faults in the meter itself. IMO, the best argument in favor of the imperial system is that you get more prime factors, so e.g. feet can be easily divided into 2, 3, 4, or 6 equal parts without using fractions. This is less important when one has access to decimal calculators.
Those ancient scientist did know the square root of 2 and PI by 4 sexagesimal figures. Thats better then IEEE floating point single precision! They did calculate the size of the earth being only 0.77% off the real value.
All this wisdom was lost 333BC, when Alexander destroyed civilization, installed femicide and women segreation, that is still cursing middle eat. Later the Greeks claimed parts of recovered ancient math as their own. So we now know the names of Greek copycats like Pythagoras, but not the names of those who really discovered this wisdom.
It had been most likely a female name, because reading, writing, math had been typical women skills at that time.
In French: http://www.arte.tv/guide/fr/041693-004/un-metre-pour-mesurer... / https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y77kLA1eC0M
And in German: http://www.arte.tv/guide/de/041693-004/terra-x / https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoMvzVLiL94
(Written after looking for a #29 drill for tapping #8-32 threads for an electrical terminal fitting 14 gauge wire.)
It's a really neat piece, lots of strong opinions on both sides.
http://www.cbc.ca/archives/categories/science-technology/mea...
~10min long