Yes, I'd go along with that! At least Piazzi Smyth's pyramid inch was based (albeit loosely) on something tangible, rather than the simplistic division of an arbitrary meridien. The reason Imperial measurements are better in many respects is that they relate directly to the human form - that's you and me - whereas metric measurements have no relationship at all. Thus it is much easier to estimate ditances in feet and inches than it is in metres and (the absurdly small) millimetres. Of course, for some specialised work, metric measurements are no better and no worse; atronomers for instance do better with the numbers they need to measure huge distances, when in a metric form, and physicists with the numbers they need to measure minute atomic distances. But neither of these is a measurement that us ordinary folk use on a day-to-day basis - and for those, Imperial with its greater number of divisors is far better. Americans should be warned. If you 'go metric' as Britain has been forced to do it will seem a very strange world for those not brought up to it from an early age. What the hell is a litre of petrol?? Mercifully though, I can still get a pint of beer, and with that I know my limitation. Long may it continue.
Peter Tandy At , you wrote: >Anyone for cubits? Or, how about the mythical "Pyramid Inch", >popularized by the late Piazzi Smyth? > >Tom McHugh > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Rt. 1, Box 896 >Fort Fairfield, ME 04742 >USA > >N 46° 45' 13" >W 67° 48' 42" > >---------- >> Frank Evans contributed: >> > >> >What's all this inches nonsense. Anyone would think we were back >> >landing on the moon or something. Napoleon, thou should'st be living at >> >this hour. >> > >> ....and we'd tear every bone apart! >> >> Guess who! > > > >
