Pounds Vs Kilograms

Blackleaf
#31
The Impact Of Decline Upon Weights And Measures

Anonymous (8/12/1996)

Our community is discarding the useful weights and measures learnt by centuries of experience by replacing Imperial with Metric measure. The following article is from Keefe university, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire, England. It is about the proposed metrication of the United Kingdom but it clearly reveals the defeat of commonsense that metrication entails.

SURELY the most irritating excuse produced for the European Commission's banning of British Imperial weights and measures is the claim that feet and inches, gallons and pints, pounds and ounces do not belong in the "modern world". This claim has never cut much ice. The USA put Neil Armstrong on the moon using Imperial measurements and continues to use feet and inches in designing space satellites. The most modern desk-top publishing computer programmes use fractions of an inch to measure letter sizes, and electronic weighing scales in supermarkets display pound and ounces on digitalised readouts. What is not so well known is that it is in fact the METRIC system which is outmoded and flawed, seriously hampering efficient practices of measuring, division and tallying.

The problem with metric is that every unit is based on the number ten. In weight, for example, there are 10 mg in 1 cg, 10 cg in 1 dg, 10 dg in 1 g, 10g in 1 Dg, 10Dg in 1hg, 10 hg in 1 kg, 10 kg in 1 Mg, and so on. Although metric's decimal structure is much acclaimed by supporters of conversion, the rigidity of constant multiplications of ten frequently means that metric measures overshoot desirable or useful proportions. Take the experience of the metric system in the building industry as an example. Metric fails to produce any intermediate unit between the decimetre (4 inches) and the metre (40 inches) and so deprives builders of the Imperial foot, used throughout history and suitable for a wide range of building needs such as planning grids. As a result, the building trade sector, both in Britain and in Europe, has created the "metric foot" of 30 centimetres together with larger units of 120 or 90 centimetres (metric yards) into which metric feet may divide. Metric in the building industry survives because the metre can be discarded in favour of measures that reproduce the very Imperial units metric was intended to replace.

Cans of soft drink provide another example of metric inefficiency. Drink cans cannot be produced in metric units because there are no metric measures available that reflect normal drinking quantities. The litre is much too big and the centilitre is much too small. Instead, the canning industry has had to divide the litre by about a third and produce a non-standard metric measure of "330 millilitres" in order to produce a suitable quantity. The figure of 330 millilitres does not constitute an exact third of a litre because no metric measure can be divided by three without producing an infinitely recurring decimal(3.333333 etc). Thus, three cans of Coke make 0.99 litres, not one litre. Rather than streamlining our system of measurement, metrication disrupts it.

Metric's inappropriate divisions are compounded by the fact that metric is based on abstract scientific principles which are aloof from everyday uses. The metre is defined as "The length equal to 1,650,763.3 wavelengths in vacuum of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the levels 2p to base 10 and Sd to base 5 of the krypton 86 atom." As fascinating as such equations are to atomic scientists, metric measures do not bear any relevance to the vast diversity of human activities such as commerce, construction, surveying, cooking and weighing new-born babies. Whereas the British system has evolved around the essentials of what people carry, drink or work with (producing the pound, pint and foot), the metric system is a combination of unergonomic units based on a number that can seldom be cleanly divided and from which important proportions cannot be expressed as single units. Metric is workable only by abandoning its standard measures, the metre, kilo and litre, and replacing them with units of different sizes based on human needs and totally unrelated to "wavelengths in a vacuum". And because of metric's decimal structure, desirable quantities can only be represented by larger numbers of numerous digits: the logical unit of one pound of tinned food therefore becomes the metric standard of 420 grams; one gallon of engine oil becomes five litres of oil; a straightforward foot of fabric becomes twenty-five centimetres of fabric; two inch wide masking tape becomes fifty millimetres; a pint of milk becomes five hundred millilitre units; and roof-boxes, baths and tables previously measured as five or six feet explode into hundreds of centimetres or thousands of millimetres.

Such conversions do not make numbers more logical or streamlined, just bigger. There is no magic process by which measuring the world in metric improves it. Selling petrol by litres instead of gallons does not improve efficiency or solve world pollution. Enforcing metric measures in the building industry does not make houses faster to build or ensure superior quality. Nor is there any evidence that converting clothing sizes from inches to centimetres will make clothes easier to fit.

Any glance at history will confirm the use of metric does not ensure success. Whereas Britain's industrial growth during the 1800s was at a time of Imperial measurements, Britain's decline from the 1960s was during the very first move towards metric. Going decimal in 1971 did not prevent the period of inflation that followed, nor has the metrication of school education improved the level of learning. During the Second World War, countries that used Imperial measures were victors while losers used metric. If metricators only studied the metric countries they are so keen to copy, they would find that most have adapted the metric system to reproduce Imperial measures that existed prior to their own metrication. Examples include the French "livre"and the German "Pfund" (500 grams, about one pound in weight), and the Swedish inch (25 millimetres). Numerous European industries have not yet converted to metric: the German gun industry, the Dutch plumbing trade and the Swedish timber industry all use Imperial measures. Belgium, home of the European Union, uses acres, not metric hectares. And it should not be forgotten that the most powerful economy in the world uses Imperial measures: the United States of America.

The lack of closely-argued research by the British Government to demonstrate the supposed "benefits" of metrication is even more astonishing considering that the costs of transferring to metric amounts to a staggering 12 billion. Having lost the technical argument, metricators resort to the claim that Imperial measures are "complicated and difficult to understand". This is rather like suggesting people are unable to grasp the concept of a right angle because right angles consist of ninety degrees rather than 100. It is a simple fact that we all live in an "irrational" 365 or 366 day year in which the measurements of hours, days and months involves units as diverse as 60, 24, 7,14, 28, 30, 31, 12 and 52. Although there is not a single ten involved in measuring the passage of time, this writer has yet to meet anyone who cannot tell the time because of the "confusing" division of hours into 60 rather than 100 minutes, or who is unable to remember the day because there are seven days in a week instead of a logical "ten".

The entire metric attack on Britain flies in the face of European Union President Jacques Santer's assurance in May 1995 that European Union did not threaten the UK's national identity or cultural traditions. The reality is that the European Union is intent on abolishing almost every British measure by means of European Union directives 89/617 and 80/181 which have compelled the metric conversion of a vast range of packaged foods, liquids, carpets and commercial documents affecting industry, local authorities and public sector administration. Small concessions such as the printing of Imperial measures in small print along metric on food packaging are likely to be withdrawn in 1999, and the few areas to escape this year's imposition, in particular the weighing of loose fruit in pounds and ounces, will be banned on January 1st 2000.

But surely, argue the supporters of European Union, Britain is now a part of Europe and should accept European ways. Here in lies the Great Euro-Lie. If the European Union regarded Britain as much a part of Europe as France and Germany, then it necessarily follows that pints are just as European as litres, and miles as European as kilometres. The European Union's hostility to the European way of life which has developed in Britain reveals that its definition of "Europe" is a strictly selective one. It defines what is European and what is not — and its campaign against European culture in Britain reveals that British people have no place in Europe other than as 57 million featureless numbers to add to the growing Euro-bureaucratic machine. An English village sweet shop can no longer sell four ounces of butterscotch but has to say "113 grams" and 9 by 4 inch envelopes will be re-labelled "229 x 102 millimetres" in a clumsy attempt to show how accurate metric can be. The British people, who have been quite happy with pints and pounds, will be forced instead to learn words like "decagram" and "hectalitre". But nowhere are the effects of metrication more ludicrous than in our courts. Any witness who refers to a six-inch knife will be told by the judge to say a "152 millimetre" knife and instructed to speak only in terms of centimetres and metres. Thus, even to speak in non-metric language will be banned by the European Union in some circumstances.

The sheer unpopularity of European Union directives 89/617 and 80/181 may be gauged by the Government's threat of £5,000 fines and six month prison sentences for those who use Imperial measures. Due to the Government's attempt to sneak the changes in unnoticed by the public at large, confusion and contradiction has surrounded just who and what is affected by the directives. Doorstep milk pints may stay (for the time being) but milk cartons have to go metric. Shandy in pints is banned but pints of beer may remain. Pizza restaurants may continue to refer to seven inch pizzas rather than "177 millimetre" pizzas, but it remains unclear whether bicycle shop assistants risk prosecution if they say that a cycle has an 18-inch wheel instead of an European Union approved "457 mm" wheel. And will the police be guilty of a criminal offence should they refer to a suspect's height in some official document as "six feet"? The classification "criminal" is a serious one and should be reserved for people who rob, assault and kill. That people like grocers and tailors can go to prison for failing to observe surreal metric-diktat is an indication of the mad Euro-whirlpool into which we are all being sucked.

Metrication is not the only form of uniformity being imposed by the European Union. Brussels has already phased in European Union passports and is now pushing the idea of a Euro-driving licence (complete with mugshots). This is likely to be followed by some sort of Euro-identity card. Perhaps Brussels might like to also consider scrapping British Bank Holidays and replacing them with Euro Holidays? Or introducing a Euro-wide telephone box design, or a single Euro-uniform for postmen, or the abolition of the British legal system? Or triangular tea-bags?

It defies belief that when there are so many real problems confronting Europe such as the war in Bosnia, Brussels finds time to fiddle about with such issues as whether manufacturers from outside Cornwall and Yorkshire should be permitted to call their products Cornish pasties and Yorkshire puddings. The European Union is presently considering a proposal by the European Parliament to set up a "European Observation Station" to monitor flying saucers. No less than 20,000 directives interfering in every conceivable subject from carrots and cucumbers to carpets and coffins have flooded out of Brussels. One of the European Union's most recent directives has been its historic decision to forbid the use of a harmless colouring dye in frozen mushy peas. As a result, frozen mushy peas will be sold yellow in colour from June 1996. "I don't know what we're going to do," says John Clark, sales director of frozen mushy pea producer, Lockwoods of Ambergate, which employs 24 people. "We have been producing mushy peas for thirty years . . . We feel this is a case of the big boys in Brussels pushing around small British firms. "Lockwoods of Ambergate will stop production in December 1995.

Other firms to feel the pressure of Euro-remoulding include rural garages which make small sales of petrol and have found it difficult meeting the cost of spending thousands of pounds on metric pumps. According to garage owner Frank Robertson from Cloughton, North Yorkshire, "It's uneconomic to lashout on new pumps serving litres." Mr Robertson's Orchard Garage opened in 1929 and has now closed as a result of metrication. According to a motor trade estimate, four thousand rural garages have closed. All thanks to the streamlined beauty of "European Union".

Europe has a long history of producing regimes and ideologies committed to the concept of the European superstate: Napoleonic France, Nazi Germany, Communist Russia. Now we have the Brussels Bureaucracy, intent on invading every nook and cranny of our national life and imposing conformity and obedience on 365 million people. But there remains —just—a glimmer of hope. Although the European Union can force unpopular directives by means of legal and bureaucratic coercion, it has failed to realise that forcing people to measure their height in centimetres does not make people like centimetres. Forcing people to use kilometres instead of miles will not make them like kilometres. And forcing British people to carry European identity cards will not make people feel European.

Rather than forging a new European identity, the European Union's constant pushing is more likely to increase resistance, and it is in this that the seed of the European Union's future destruction will lie. "Metric Day" has cut Imperial measures down in swathes and has been a devastating defeat for commonsense. Yet anti-metric sentiment can be heard in pubs, offices and supermarkets across the country. Here and there individuals are turning to face the metric onslaught. Property consultant Mike Natrass of Birmingham's Natrass Giles, recently turned down a merger proposal when he learnt that the other company was going metric. He said, "We are British and don't want to see things that are British being lost." Another businessman, Bruce Robertson, owner of the Trago Mills Store Group in Devon and Cornwall, has made public his intention to risk fines in order to resist metrication. And spearheading the fight is the British Weights and Measures Association established by Vivian Linacre. Mr Linacre has vowed to stop metric absorption at all costs and is to challenge compulsory metrication in the European Court of Justice. Britain has four years before the current wave of metrication is completed. This period must be used to bring urgent pressure on our Government to halt the process it has so negligently permitted by giving the people of Britain a clear assurance that the mile and the pub pint will remain. The Government must decriminalise Imperial measures, resist the European Union's banning order on pounds and ounces on January 1st 2000, and, most important of all, restore the teaching of Imperial measures in education. Such a stand will at last tell the bureaucrats of Brussels that Britain is not about to be stamped, streamlined and standardised according to specifications decided by officials the British people did not elect. Otherwise, for every inch we give the European Union, they will take a mile, or, as the European Union would prefer to say,

"Give us 25.4 millimetres and we will take 1.609 kilometres. "

ourcivilisation.com

Dexter Sinister
#32
An emotional plea full of the straw man fallacy that amounts to no more than a wish to stick with familiar things. All the soft drink cans around here, for instance, are 355 ml; why is that any harder to deal with than 12 ounces? It's the same volume, to within a percent or two. The SI system doesn't lend itself to convenient sized units? Nonsense, it's just a matter of what you're used to; you can make containers in any size you want and call them anything you want. Want a pint of bitters? How about half a liter instead? Not much difference.

The problem, since you asked, is that there are multiple systems of weights and measures when one is all anybody needs.

JonB2004
#33
I use both systems.

I think not
#34
Dexter is right, it's all a matter of getting used to, although given the decimal nature of the metric system, I would think it is easier to convert from Imperial to Metric.

zoofer
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

.. It can also hurt commercially not to use it. Want to sell a boatload of lumber to the Netherlands? They'll want metric sizes, so we'll have to sell them the next largest size in Imperial units for the same price, then they'll trim it down to the metric size and sell the shavings to the Swedes, who'll turn it into particle board and sell it back to us as low-end Ikea furniture...

Works the opposite way selling to the USA, our largest trading partner.
Want to sell them a brick? Reset the cutting machines from metric to Imperial and cut them a brick. They don't want a metric brick. Screw up the wall.

Dexter Sinister
#36
Yep, that's why the only market for Canadian dimensioned lumber is the United States, and we haven't converted our lumber production to metric units largely because of that. And it shuts us out of almost every other market for lumber.

Blackleaf
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

All the soft drink cans around here, for instance, are 355 ml.

They should say "330 mil."

And that shows why Metric is inefficient.

As it says in the article -

Quote:

Cans of soft drink provide another example of metric inefficiency. Drink cans cannot be produced in metric units because there are no metric measures available that reflect normal drinking quantities. The litre is much too big and the centilitre is much too small. Instead, the canning industry has had to divide the litre by about a third and produce a non-standard metric measure of "330 millilitres" in order to produce a suitable quantity. The figure of 330 millilitres does not constitute an exact third of a litre because no metric measure can be divided by three without producing an infinitely recurring decimal(3.333333 etc). Thus, three cans of Coke make 0.99 litres, not one litre. Rather than streamlining our system of measurement, metrication disrupts it.

#38
"Rather than streamlining our system of measurement, metrication..."

Oh, grow up.

I don't care whether I'm drinking a non-terminated third of a litre or not.

Blackleaf
#39
Other reasons why Imperial is superior to Metric -

French wines

It was the French who invented this decimal system of measurement and the French nation is proud of this 'great' achievement. The French are also proud of their native wines and rightly so. You would expect, therefore, the French wine industry to have embraced wholeheartedly this symbol of French intellectual supremacy. So when you order a case of French wine you get 10 litres of wine in 10 bottles, right? Wrong! You get 9 litres in 12 bottles! "Zut alors, Pierre. How did that renegade twelve get in there?" Back to le drawing board mes amis!
=============================================

What's the weather like?

We have now all been thoroughly brainwashed into accepting the weatherman on TV and radio telling us the temperatures in Centigrade (or Celsius or whatever it's called this week). But there is a curious thing happens during the summer months. When it gets hot outside, the newspapers and radio and TV start telling us the temperatures in Fahrenheit with phrases such as "..in the nineties". This is understandable because talking about temperatures "..in the high thirties" doesn't quite have the same impact. Nor does talking in Centigrade give any indication of the relative temperature, i.e. how it feels to us. Is it hot or cold today? Will I need a coat if I go out?

The metric method of measuring temperature uses a scale of 0 to 100 based on the freezing point and boiling point of water. Now this is all very well in the scientific laboratory but why is it considered to be a sensible method of measuring the ambient air temperature? When was the last time you saw boiling hot rain?

If it is necessary to use a scale of 0 to 100 to indicate what sort of weather we are having, then it would be a good idea to use one which relates to how we feel when we are out of doors. Surprise, surprise! The Fahrenheit (Imperial) scale of temperatures does exactly that! When it is 100 degrees, we feel like sitting in the shade and relaxing with a long cool drink and when it is 0 degrees, we stay in the house and pray for Spring. And when we are given any number in between those two extremes, we know exactly how hot or cold it is outside. It works! Why mess about changing to an abstract concept for the sake of tidy-minded bureaucrats and unworldly scientists?
==========================================
Sports Report

* * *

During the recent Rugby World Cup, the Director of the BWMA (British Weights and Measures Association) referred to the "10 yard line", the "25 yard line", etc. in conversation with a South African supporter, who interrupted with "No, no, you mean metres - we're all metric now!"

Whereupon the Director asked: "What do you call your player in the no. 9 position?" and the Springbok had to answer, "Scrum half, of course!" to which the rejoinder was "No, no, you mean scrum 0.5 - we're all metric now! And what about your nos. 11 and 14?"

"Wing three-quarters, of Course" to which again the counter was "No, no, you mean wing 0.75 - we're all metric now!"

What use are decimals when the human mind prefers fractions, using factors that tie in with customary measures?
* * *

During the 2nd January football match between Rangers and Celtic in Glasgow, there was a free kick just outside the penalty area and the BBC radio commentator Roddy Forsyth, declared that the referee was having trouble ensuring that the defending players were "the full ten metres from the ball" before allowing the attacking side to take the free kick.

"Oh!", thought I, "they must have changed the rules". Surprise, surprise; when I checked I found that there had been no such change in the rules of the game and that it still says "opposing players must be ten yards from the ball" at free kicks, corners etc.
So, Mr. Forsyth, if you wish to be all trendy and up to date and yet still give an accurate radio picture of what is happening, then you must say "the full 9.12 metres from the ball!"
* * *

We all know that the International Olympic Committee has been using metric units for years.

But, does anybody know why they still organise races over one furlong(200metres), the quarter mile(400metres) and the half mile(800metres)?

Why are they not running metric races like 250metres or 500metres?
* * *
---------------------------------------

bwmaonline.com

Blackleaf
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadox

"Rather than streamlining our system of measurement, metrication..."

Oh, grow up.

I don't care whether I'm drinking a non-terminated third of a litre or not.

That's not the point.

The point is that Imperial is better, as you can't divide ten by a third unless you have 3.33333333333333.

If Britain has British Imperial measurements on its drinks cans, it won't have to use "330 mils" or "333.33333333333 etc etc" mils.

Imperial measurements can be divided by a third without having to use infinite decimals.

#41
Yeah, and?

Does anybody care?

Seriously, I think if anyone is going to refuse to drink a can of something because they don't like drinking infinite-decimal measurements should be promptly smacked upside the head.

Blackleaf
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadox

Yeah, and?

Does anybody care?

Seriously, I think if anyone is going to refuse to drink a can of something because they don't like drinking infinite-decimal measurements should be promptly smacked upside the head.

I'm not saying that no-one will buy the drinks can.

I'm just using drinks cans as an example to prove that British Imperial measurements are superior to French Metric.

Now that I've proved it, you're trying to ignore it by trying to tell me that it won't stop anyone from buying the drink.

#43
You're basing an entire offensive against metric based on the fact that it doesn't divide by three evenly? lol, what about by 2, or by 5, or by 10? Are those numbers any less valid? Why should a valid measurement be divisible by 3?

The metric system is easier to use; and it is based on uniformity, so why not use it?

Sassylassie
#44
Blackleaf do you by any chance live in the Tower of London? Why I ask is that your attitude is so pompus and out of date with todays reality. I am thinking you are a member of the Royal Family and you're a little Ga-ga and they shoved you up into the tower with an internet connection so the world won't know of your existence. I hope the Queen doesn't catch you bad mouthing the rest of the world, she wouldn't like it.

#juan
#45
The metric system is in place

whether we like it or not. Our children have been, and are being taught in metric.

I spent thirty odd years working with British Thermal Units. BTUs or BTUH. A btu is the amount of heat neccesary to raise the temperature of one pound of water by one degree fahrenheit. The Fahrenheit system sees water freeze at thirty two degrees, and boil at 212 degrees. I also worked with gallons per minute,(both imperial and U.S.) and cubic feet per minute. I mentioned my inertia regarding the change to metric. If I was starting today, there would be no contest. Metric all the way.

Blackleaf
#46
British is best.

So the metric system works just fine? Read the real-life experience of an American in Europe with her fiancée and his family. The writer uses a light-hearted style to pin-prick the metric-Marxists' false claims.

Metric Land
or
What I think of the metric system

by Joan Pontius

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Belgium, you can buy jam in returnable jars, and once I finished my jar, and was cleaning it, and in the glass at the bottom was "3/8 L". And this sort of threw me, because I was a big metric fan, and the great advantage of the metric system was that it got rid of all those silly fractions. So why were they using them here in metric-land? Then I figured the jar was only so big, so it took up less space to print 3/8 L rather than 0.375 L.

But there was another possibility. That being that although the metric system looks good on paper, people/society finds fractions useful. So ok, we have the metric system for important stuff, but for certain situations, fractions will be used.

So then, I'm slowly picking up some Dutch, and we go out for beers, and Filip is always asking for "A Pincha", and I find out that actually he's saying "a pintje", meaning "a small pint". So here we are in metric land, and people are ordering their beers with ENGLISH terms!

This is really throwing me, and I say, yeah but Filip, it's not a pint, it's 250 milliliters! Why do you call it a pint? You've got the metric system, why don't you use it? Why don't you order in metric? You don't need those silly English measurements, you have New and Improved Metric units. When you go into a cafe, instead of shouting "Een Pintje Alstublieft" you should say, two-hundred-and-fifty-milliliters alstublieft!"

He just gave me a strange look, and mumbled something about it being too hard to say. And ok, maybe giving the precise amount of milliliters is a bit extreme, but he could at least say, "A quarter liter alstublieft." But then maybe even that would be too difficult after lots of beer, so maybe just giving that one unit a name makes sense.

But then that means that something screwy is going on. Not only are the Europeans turning the metric system back into fractions, but they're giving names to them! We change everything into metric, then people find it more useful to use fractions, and then they give names to these fractions, and before you know it, we're back where we started from!

Then I got fired from my job in Brussels, or was asked to resign, or whatever you want to call it, I had LOTS of free time and not much to do. I read what I could find, but since my French and Dutch were so bad, this consisted of reading cookbooks.

So I was reading these cooking books, and it was weird, because these recipes would have "half a cup" of one thing, and an "eet-lapel" or "koffie-lapel" of something else (Just as England's Imperial measurements were derived from real life everyday things - e.g. a cupful; a spoonful, etc).

I said, "Hey Filip, what's an eet-lapel?" And he told me it's an eating spoon (which is really a soup spoon), and a koffie lapel is a coffee spoon, like the English teaspoons. And I say, "But hey, we're in metric-land! Dat gaat niet!" And he says, "Of course we use the metric system, but in that one case, they're just writing it that way for the easiness of the people." (i.e., to make it easy on everyone).

So then I go to my mother-in-law-to-be, and I say, "Hey, these recipes call for cup of something, how much is that exactly?" And she pulls out her cup that she drinks coffee from to show me, and I say,"Yeah, but aren't different cups sometimes different sizes?"

And then she said, "Ja zeker!" And she took me to her china cabinet and showed me all the different cups she has and all the different sizes there are. And then I said, "Yeah but Francine, doesn't this like, ever become a problem in knowing exactly how much to use?" and she shrugged her shoulders and nodded!

So that means the European kitchens are less precise than American and English. They just take any old cup, any old spoon! So where is the advantage of being metric? Then Filip says, yeah, but MOST recipes don't call for volumes, they call for weights, and this is true. BUT, how do you WEIGH a teaspoon of basil?!? How about a quarter teaspoon of nutmeg?!? And now he's going to baking school, and you should see him trying to weigh out his salt on our scale that I only use for weighing mail. It's so sad!

Then I get out my Joy of Cooking, and all these crazy units sort of start to make sense, to fit together. There are even conversions between weight/volume and length like in the metric system. A pint weighs a pound, and is 3 inches cubed. Half a pint is a cup, half of that is half a cup, half of that is a quarter cup, half of that is 2 tablespoons, and half of that is one tablespoon, and all these units in an ENGLISH kitchen can be measured out.

[b]Then I start to realize that for length there is a similar problem in the metric system, in that you can't divide a meter continuously by 2 without getting fractions . In the English system, the rulers are divided by quarters and eighths and 16ths, but the metric ruler is divided into units of ten, so any fraction of that you just have to guess. It is IMPOSSIBLE to divide a meter by three, because you get 0.333333333 etc meters; using the metric ruler, a third on a metric meter doesn't exist! So then I start to think, hey, THAT'S WHY THERE ARE 12 INCHES IN A FOOT, you can divide all sorts of ways, by 2, by 3, by 4, by 6, no problem! Cool!

We have this friend who is a carpenter, and I see him, and I say, "Hey, Freddie, when you have a board a meter long, how do you divide it into 3?" And he sort of gives me a funny look, and says why would he want to do that. And I say, well, "How does that work? Because in the metric system, a third of a meter isn't marked on your ruler so what do you do? Don't you ever have a board of one meter that you have to divide by three?" And he says, "No." And I'm sort of crestfallen, and then he adds, we don't buy boards by the meter, the standard lengths they sell are in 120 centimeters.

!!!!!

SO now there is a NEW unit of measurement, call it the-standard-length- that-carpenters-buy-their-wood-in, and it is 120 centimeters! The THICKNESS of the wood is even in a number that is easily divisible, that is, 2.4 centimeters, and they call that a thumb! How long before the length of 120 centimeters has a name all to itself, and how long before some lunatic is going to come along, and say, "Hey, this-here is darn CONFUSING having that-there unit being 120 centimeters, and this-here unit being 2.4, we need a NEW measurement system, one where everything is in units of ten!"

So this is getting really interesting, and I head to the library, and look up measurement, and ALL THROUGH HISTORY, societies have used units of measurements that are evenly divisible at least 3 ways. Now we have this great metric system, and we can only divide by 2 and 5 without getting a fraction.

Progress? Whassat?

Ok, and then there is the temperature thing.

I always liked science because it was the one field of study that would be consistent throughout the world. I always found it a waste of time to study French or botany, because if, for example, you were on a desert island, these French words or plant names wouldn't do you any good. Science on the other hand was (WAS, past tense) a kind of ultimate truth for me, and this desert island thing used to be a kind of test as to whether something was valuable.

And it appears I'm not alone, because last time I was in America, I was voicing my opinion on the metric system, and someone said, "If I were on a desert island, I'd use a system that was divisible by ten." And I said, "But would your number system be based on ten?" The ONLY advantage of the metric system is that it can easily be written because we write our numbers in base ten. But that doesn't mean that if you were on a desert island YOUR number system would be in base ten. In fact, if you were on a desert island, and you needed a ruler, you wouldn't be ABLE to generate a precise system on base ten, because you'd have to estimate where to put the markings on the ruler! What you'd have to do is take your ruler, and divide it in half, and that in half, and put the markings THERE, and you'd end up with a ruler divided into 16 or 32 or 64 or something, but not ten!

And for thermometers, it seems that is precisely what Fahrenheit was up to. Fahrenheit was playing around and playing around and finally set ice water at 32, and body temperature at 96, so that there were 64 divisions between the two. That way, no matter where you are in the world, you can re-generate his thermometer. You stick the thermometer in ice water, and mark it there. Then you stick it under your tongue, and mark it there. Then you get a string, and fold it in half 6 times, and you have the 64 divisions between 32 and 96!

It was only after Fahrenheit died that body temperature was changed to 98.6. And this being because the boiling point of water was later deemed more reliable than body temperature. So boiling water was set at 212, and that made 180 "degrees" between it and the freezing point of water. But whoever made that change was probably completely ignorant of the problems Fahrenheit had gone through calibrating his thermometers.

Then the French Revolution came around, and a bunch of intellectuals were sitting around. And these intellectual types, they aren't sitting in labs, or making things, DOING measurements, they just looking at the measurements on paper. So to them, all these fractions were a pain in the ***, and they decided that everything should be changed.

So they spent SIX YEARS deciding how long a meter should be, and then passed all sorts of laws REQUIRING everyone to use the measurements; people were FINED for not using them!

So then we had a new thermometer, in degrees Celsius. Then hot air balloons were getting popular and Boyle and Charles were playing around and trying to figure out how temperature affects volume and pressure of gases. But there was one hitch, that is, they wanted to be able to divide by the temperature of the gas. This was a problem whenever the temperature was zero. So eventually a number was found that could be added to the measured temperature so that all their equations would work out nicely, and this new temperature was called Kelvin.

Then a bunch of intellectuals came around once more, and decide that these gas laws, instead of being a TOOL, used to DESCRIBE the properties of gas, that these laws were some kind of ultimate truth. And then they decided that since the equations won't work at zero Kelvin, that nothing can possible exist at that temperature!

And now that's what they teach us in physics class! I HATE that! If the fields of science and history even overlapped a little bit, we MIGHT be able to move in a direction we refer to as "progress", but the way it is now is completely ridiculous.

Any praise for the metric system hits a raw nerve with me. The metric system is a symbol to me of the division of the ruling class and the people doing all the work. The ruling class (no pun intended) makes all these rules that are completely impractical, and everyone else has to sort of make due, find their way around it. The metric system also symbolizes to me this blind faith we have in science, that science is some kind of ultimate truth, instead of a tool we use to make life easier for ourselves. And because of this blind faith we have, "science" ends up making life harder, less practical for ourselves.

www.tysknews.com/Depts/Metric...etric_land.htm (external - login to view)

I think not
#47
It's official, Blackleaf bores me to tears.

Sassylassie
#48
ITN, Lord Blackleaf's butler/Valet quit and he's been really cranky lately.

#49
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf

Any praise for the metric system hits a raw nerve with me. The metric system is a symbol to me of the division of the ruling class and the people doing all the work. The ruling class (no pun intended) makes all these rules that are completely impractical, and everyone else has to sort of make due, find their way around it. The metric system also symbolizes to me this blind faith we have in science, that science is some kind of ultimate truth, instead of a tool we use to make life easier for ourselves. And because of this blind faith we have, "science" ends up making life harder, less practical for ourselves.

You're going to try to portray the metric system as some sort of ruling class division? Oh, please; that is such nonsense. I see this as more an issue of certain people not being able to let go of an outdated and archaic system of measurements, that no longer serves its purpose. Using metres, litres and grams makes everything uniform, in a base-ten number system that everyone knows and understands, and measuring temperature using zero as a reference point for freezing (makes sense to me), and one hundred as the perfect boiling temperature for water (also makes sense to me) seems logical enough.

#juan
#50
Blackleaf

12 inches to a foot, 3 feet to a yard, 16.5 feet to a rod, 5280 feet to a mile, 1 horsepower = 33000 foot pounds per minute or 745.699872 watts. It's a nightmare. At least it's a nightmare to those who use metric.

#juan
#51
The whole story in a (quite large) nutshell.

http://tinyurl.com/mmhnw

zoofer
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf

British is best.

So the metric system works just fine? Read the real-life experience of an American in Europe with her fiancée and his family. The writer uses a light-hearted style to pin-prick the metric-Marxists' false claims.

www.tysknews.com/Depts/Metric...etric_land.htm (external - login to view)

lol
Quite entertaining.

no new posts