Title: Alder's "Measure of All Things"
Han Maenen wrote in USMA 23822

I think that I will buy that book through the internet. I do not trust Mr.
Alders intention with the book. Just see the last sentence of this mail.
The two 'pro-metric' statements were not made by Mr. Leopold, but they were
quoted from the author, Mr. Alder.  The emphasis by all those who have commented on this book is just far too much on the error and is more than enough to stiffen American resistance to metric.
I wonder what the BWMA has to say about this book. I will have a look on
their websites.

Last but not least. The following statement, which was the last sentence in
the article show how anti-metric it all is:
"That is why," Alder says, "Delambre and Mechain's meter -- created 'for all
people, for all time' -- was in fact an error for all people, for all time."

Han


I have just completed reading "The Measure of All Things".  I don't think Alders is anti-metric; he is just not interested in measurement, and he assumes that his readers don't understand metric measures.  I found two serious errors regarding measures in his book.  He is an associate professor of history.  He provided a lot of interesting information about the metric survey, including the psychosis of M�chain.  Alder's sub-title of "The Hidden Error That Transformed the World" was simply an embellishment to attract sales.

I got a different perspective on the matter from "Le M�tre du Monde" by Denis Guedj, �ditions du Seuil, May 2000, ISBN 2-02-040718-3.  He wrote on page 288 (my translation):
"Before dying, M�chain asked that his manuscripts be sent to Delambre, and  to him alone.
"And that was the terrible discovery: 'His manuscripts, object of so munch anxiety, were delivered to us.  His secret was revealed by even the means he took to conceal their disclosure.  We see there the Barcelona observations and the three seconds by which they differed from those of Mont Jouy', wrote Delambre who did not mince his words...'to conceal the disclosure...
'Three seconds of angle!'"
.............................................................................
Guedj added on page 290:
"What was the impact of these three seconds on the results of the survey?  Finally, what was it on the length of the metre, proclaimed with pomp and ceremony in 1799?  In 1793 he had sent to Paris the first Montjouy results.  Not the seconds.  It was with the firsts that all the calculations were done and the metre was determined: it was the seconds that were erroneous.  Conclusion: M�chain's error had no influence whatsoever on the metre!"
--
Joseph B. Reid
17 Glebe Road West
Toronto  M5P 1C8                Telephone 416-486-6071

--



Reply via email to