Comments on: Is the metric system scientific? http://butler-harris.org/archives/126 How can you have the last word if you haven't heard the first? Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:16:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: MAJ http://butler-harris.org/archives/126#comment-3092 Tue, 20 Feb 2007 03:26:46 +0000 http://butler-harris.org/archives/126#comment-3092 I think if we just persist and continue to divide "everything" in half, sooner or later we'll discover that the most logical, and easiest way of thinking about things just got alot more complicated. 10 works just fine. So does the cartesian graph, but it "is" so square. Much easier to relate to though. Not much in nature grows in a square, however. How 'bout a solid 3? Geometrically, makes more sense. Ask Bucky Fuller. But then again, a tetrahedron does have 4 sides doesn't it? I Gotta have faith on that one! I think if we just persist and continue to divide “everything” in half, sooner or later we’ll
discover that the most logical, and easiest way of thinking about things just got alot more complicated. 10 works just fine.
So does the cartesian graph, but it “is” so square. Much easier to relate to though.
Not much in nature grows in a square, however.
How ’bout a solid 3? Geometrically, makes more sense. Ask Bucky Fuller. But then again, a tetrahedron does have 4 sides doesn’t it?
I Gotta have faith on that one!

]]> by: TurretinFan http://butler-harris.org/archives/126#comment-625 Wed, 22 Nov 2006 01:10:14 +0000 http://butler-harris.org/archives/126#comment-625 Anonymous, a quick repost off your comments. I think part of TJH's initial post was that the basic unit itself is arbitrary. The selection of powers of 10 simplifies the math in conversion and in the math related to physics. Many of the other systems of measurement are more useful in day to day life. It's easy to mentally grasp an "acre" in land, a "bushel" in wheat, a "gallon" in wine, a "teaspoon" or "tablespoon" in salt, a "yard" or "mile" in paces, and so on. These ad hoc measurements mainly create problems as a system, that is, in the process of conversion. Should that burden be borne by the physicists or the commoner? -Turretinfan Anonymous, a quick repost off your comments. I think part of TJH’s initial post was that the basic unit itself is arbitrary. The selection of powers of 10 simplifies the math in conversion and in the math related to physics.
Many of the other systems of measurement are more useful in day to day life. It’s easy to mentally grasp an “acre” in land, a “bushel” in wheat, a “gallon” in wine, a “teaspoon” or “tablespoon” in salt, a “yard” or “mile” in paces, and so on.
These ad hoc measurements mainly create problems as a system, that is, in the process of conversion.
Should that burden be borne by the physicists or the commoner?
-Turretinfan

]]> by: Anonymous http://butler-harris.org/archives/126#comment-614 Sun, 19 Nov 2006 06:40:26 +0000 http://butler-harris.org/archives/126#comment-614 I'm failing to see the goal of your parodying of the metric system. As you mentioned, who really doubts that the metric system is ultimately arbitrary? And why do you not point out that this applies to any "intuitive" and seemingly user-friendly measurement system as well? And let's not bring up the moments when you concede that even the indigenous systems have precise standards, too. :P A measurement system based on base 10 makes sense. We have 10 fingers and ten toes, thus its "intuitively" a good base---at least in my opinion. You have mentioned that dividing by 10 is arbitrary. No one disagrees with this. But if your number system is built on base 10 then it makes a whole lot of sense to build your measurement system around base 10, as opposed to "12 inches in a foot, 3 feet in a yard, 1760 yards in a mile," etc. I’m failing to see the goal of your parodying of the metric system. As you mentioned, who really doubts that the metric system is ultimately arbitrary? And why do you not point out that this applies to any “intuitive” and seemingly user-friendly measurement system as well? And let’s not bring up the moments when you concede that even the indigenous systems have precise standards, too. :P

A measurement system based on base 10 makes sense. We have 10 fingers and ten toes, thus its “intuitively” a good base—at least in my opinion. You have mentioned that dividing by 10 is arbitrary. No one disagrees with this. But if your number system is built on base 10 then it makes a whole lot of sense to build your measurement system around base 10, as opposed to “12 inches in a foot, 3 feet in a yard, 1760 yards in a mile,” etc.

]]> by: TurretinFan http://butler-harris.org/archives/126#comment-611 Sun, 19 Nov 2006 00:53:23 +0000 http://butler-harris.org/archives/126#comment-611 There are few basic units that are not arbitrary. The day, the month, and the year are examples of these. Even the hour seems to be essentially arbitrary, though of ancient lineage. The use of royal standards seems to be in keeping with ancient tradition and divine ordinance for those few basic units that are not arbitrary. In any event, the meter as a substitute for the yard is surely as much a symptom of "not invented here" syndrome as any standard has ever been. -TF There are few basic units that are not arbitrary.
The day, the month, and the year are examples of these. Even the hour seems to be essentially arbitrary, though of ancient lineage.
The use of royal standards seems to be in keeping with ancient tradition and divine ordinance for those few basic units that are not arbitrary.
In any event, the meter as a substitute for the yard is surely as much a symptom of “not invented here” syndrome as any standard has ever been.
-TF

]]>