2003-03-18 I wonder if these so-called new boards aren't just the same old boards sponsored by the known anti-metric crowd. In order to generate interest, they change their name a little and make it sound like they are something new. Now there trick seems to be to convince the casual browser to think that metric is being replaced by some new "natural" system, which for obvious reasons they don't describe, but one could easily guess it is US customary or imperial.
But, when your consider that 96 % of 6 000 000 000 or about 5 750 000 000 people world wide us metric, there is no way these fools will be able to change that. It seems to me the organisers of these boards must have some "experience" that not only is metric not going to disappear or diminish, but its use must be increasing where they work or live. This try to counter this, they sound the alarm. Let them. While the rest of us will enjoy easy calculations and rational packaging, they will be fumbling with conversion factors. And of course, they will blame metric for it. I really think we all need to go to their site and post messages on how we promote metric in our daily lives. How we are engineers and tradesmen who specify and design only in metric and how we are buying through our companies millions of dollars in metric goods, which helps drive the cost of metric down and drives the cost of FFU up. We are the silent, behind-the-scenes, users of metric. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Han Maenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, 2003-03-18 14:40 Subject: [USMA:25210] Nonsense on Metricsucks board > Quote > The new anti-metric message board (for people who like science and the > scientific basis of measurement) had over 700 page-reads in March as of > mid-month. This means that March is roughly like February (which had over > 1400 reads for the month). > > The reason for all the read-only activity is still unclear. > > Your picture is an oversimplification. > > the metric system is not a coherent stable whole (it has internal > contradictions and it is in flux) and the US does not use the "Imperial > System". > > The gist of this board is that METRIC SUCKS. It is a sterile evolutionary > dead-end. The leading-edge work in fundamental physics has abandoned metric > and is using so-called "natural units". > > * I wonder what these 'natural units' are. > > Cosmology likewise. It is a pre-revolutionary situation. Very interesting. > Quotes by top people utterly dismissing metric (once the Sacred Cow) are > easy to find by google or in sci.phsics.research of Usenet. > > One would have to be a fool or simpleton to try to limit discussion here to > a debate between "Imperial" and "Metric". what the hell is Imperial, what is > its energy unit and its force > unit, and I mean consistent with the fundamental natural laws. And what do > you mean by Metric---the 1990 > electrical standards (inconsistent with the metal kilogram) are what one > actually uses for accurate measurement at the national labs. > So do you mean the official (antiquated) defs or the 1990 standards. > > Say! We must be bored by different things! How about that? I am bored by the > metric system because it is so out-of-date and ugly. I like modern more > completely decimal systems---think powers of ten are cool. > > Metric sucks bigtime---like how many electron volts does it take to make a > joule? > Is it a power of ten? > No, it is 6,241,509,704 billion!!!! > Metric's ugly non-decimal numbers are what is boring. > Have a nice day, Richard. > Unquote > > The electron-volt is not recognized in the modern metric system and I sent a > message to the board, stating that fact. I said the only the joule should be > used for energy. They could just as well have used the so-called 'metric' > horse power to 'prove' their point. I blamed these inconsistencies not on > the metric system but on human unwillingness to change. The metric system > would not be in a flux if it was used properly. > > Han > Historian of Dutch Metrication, Nijmegen, The Netherlands >
