Mike Scott wrote:
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?
The original "metre" was 1/10,000,000 the distance between the equator
and pole. It was later refined to the distance light travels in 1 ⁄
299,792,458 second. The second is defined by the oscillations of the
cesium atom. Now consider water. One millilitre (1 cm³ or cc) has a
mass of 1 gram. A litre = 1000 cc and 1 Kg. Nice and convenient that.
Now what about the weight and dimensions of an ounce of water? U.S. vs
imperial ounce? U.S. or imperial quart? Gallon? When you work in
science or engineering the metric system works out extremely well due to
the easy scaling. You certainly can't say the same for the various
traditional units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
