Scooter is right: this is not the place for this debate, which I regret starting. In any case it is in danger of confusing the different requirements for unit systems -- needed for scientific, engineering, academic and like purposes -- and informal units for particular purposes. As it happens the founders of the metric system confused them too, but all that matters for modern purposes is overall coherence: everyone should use the same definitions, which should be reliably reproducible, and that it should be easy to move from the very large and the very small. A good collection is to be found in Stephen Dresner: Units of Measurement, Harvey Miller and Medcalf, 1971
On 4 Jun 2012 at 11:04, Scooter C wrote: Send reply to: [email protected] Date sent: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 11:04:57 -0400 From: Scooter C <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Calc] Feature request: Change default cell width from 2,27cm to 2,50cm > Good Morning Group, > > I don't understand this discussion. > Imperial or metric. Is this about Open Office (AOO) or mathematics. > > I personally wished that the USA would go metric just to be in sync > with the global "standard". USA money is metric, but nothing else. > Which is the one conversion this discussion hasn't discussed. I do > agree with several of you, It should be OUR choice which > measuring|mathematical system we want to use, period. At the very > least, the user should be aware of what AOO is using. Thanks to the > group for the clues. > > Even Autocad and other CAD programs, allow the client to choose the > math system or have both, at the same time. The Hubble telescope was a > great demonstration of what happens when you aren't aware of which > math system is being used and that was by knowledgeable scientists! > > Take Care. > Scooter > College Park, MD USA > > James Knott wrote on 6/4/2012 10:07 AM: > > 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] > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For > additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > Niall Martin Phone 0131 4678468 Please reply to: niall<at>rndmartin.cix.co.uk
