2002-02-23 It doesn't matter what the error was. The metre is not defined by that survey line any more and hasn't been since the 1870s. The minor errors are only brought to the surface by the BWMA. It is their way of attempting to convince the common masses who don't know anything about modern standards, that the entire metric system is in error.
We claim the system is almost flawless, and that is one reason to use it. If the BWMA can nit-pick at our claims, they can at least try to convince those undecided to resist metrication or efforts to metricate. Even though we site the relationship of the old units is based on metric, I'm sure the BWMA does not. I'm sure they have their own definitions of their units without any reference to metric units. And who knows, maybe the earth bulged or contracted a little in the past 200 years to account for that difference. But, again, that difference only matters to the enemies of SI. Pay no mind to it. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "James R. Frysinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, 2002-02-22 21:20 Subject: [USMA:18356] Re: Inacurracy of the original metre unit!! > Steve, as I recall (purely from memory here) from the French web pages > during their "long line" picnic, the survey from Barcelona to Dunkirk > was off by about 13 cm or so. I wish the guy who built my house had met > that spec. > > Jim > > Stephen Davis wrote: > > > > I'm sure this topic has been discussed before but I have heard it said a few times that due to certain conditions, the original equation of the measurement from France to the North pole (or was it the South pole) for the metre was inaccurate!! > > > > I would be interested to know just how inaccurate!! > > > > Regards, > > > > Steve. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- > Metric Methods(SM) "Don't be late to metricate!" > James R. Frysinger, CAMS http://www.metricmethods.com/ > 10 Captiva Row e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Charleston, SC 29407 phone/FAX: 843.225.6789 >
