On 04/06/12 13:07, James Knott wrote:
John Hart wrote:
The English system evolved to fit human needs.
The English system was based on things that were convenient at the time,
but are completely arbitrary, such as foot, barrel etc. Often, units
with the same name will vary in size, depending on context, such as
gallon, ounce (volume or weight?), mile, foot, ton etc. The metric
Not arbitrary - just usually "about the right size" for the job in hand.
As has been noted by others, "the centimetre is an excellent unit; its
only fault being that it's approximately 2.54 times too small". And a
gramme is daft for, say, cooking - a kilogramme being too big.
system is a rational, consistent system based on physical properties and
No way!!! Remind us what the original intent of the metre was - and how
wrong (and pointless). And the current definition is, well, arbitrary,
is it not?
And how do entities like the litres and are fit into a "rational" system
that already has cubic this and square that?
And don't get me going about the "fundamental" unit of weight being the
kilogramme. Logically - you did say the system was rational, did you
not? - we should have such abortions as millikilogrammes.
relationships. Again, if you want to "guestimate" by eye ratios such as
1/2, 1/3 etc., it makes no difference which system you use.
Except 10 only has divisors 2 and 5 - can you divide accurately by eye
into 5? 12 inches to a foot though - and you can divide into 2 or three
quite readily.
Each to their own. But /please/ don't pretend something is rational when
it isn't.
--
Mike Scott
Harlow, Essex, England
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
