Sometimes messages may be long but at least, lately, they are all metric related (or at least somewhat). I am pleased to see a reduction in the number of political or non metric posts lately. Thanks.
Howard Ressel Project Design Engineer, Region 4 (585) 272-3372 >>> "Carl Sorenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 07/05/03 02:23AM >>> I write this as much for the benefit of the list as for Marcus, as I have little hope of swaying his views. This is a long post (a good deal of which is quotations), so if you are the faint of heart, just hit delete now or flag it for later. >From Marcus: >Carl, despite what I perceived to be a >somewhat rude response from you (you wrote: >'...to fit your pet (???) interests') I >won't "return the favor", so to speak... I don't see how it was rude. Considering that you have a hobby of inventing new units and usages that essentially no one else on the planet uses, how could that be anything other than a "pet interest"? And for you to think we need to change SI and system six billion people use just to fit your ideas of what is important is astounding considering your pessimism toward U.S. metrication. You think certain things are incredibly important; the other six billion people don't; ergo, we have a "pet interest". >Secondly, I didn't say (and please PROVE me >by showing ANY quote of mine to that effect!) >'we should revamp SI itself'! You have expressed that opinion many times, including in the email in question. I was pointing out the inconsistency. If you really want quotes (sigh), 'until this critical mission is finally addressed' 'Only after the above can we, scientists, really dream of a TRULY universal, stable and *definitive* "system of units". The SI system could evidently be a good departing point for that, but it CERTAINLY IS NOT the ideal answer **yet**!' [from the most recent post] 'In other words, the SI would have to suffer some "corrections" to be in harmony with the FIELD OF METROLOGY.' 'The SI system is actually VERY close' 'I even feel that we can STILL salvage it' 'get the SI to CONFORM to it' >the ***I-S-S-U-E itself*** of a *system >of units* should be PROPERLY dealt with, >i.e. FROM THE GROUND UP! Marcus, I assure you that the prolific use of capitals and asterisks lends no persuasive power to your writing. It merely suggests that this is a very emotional issue for you. Perhaps you think that was another offensive comment, but I'm just letting you know. Actually, the metric system was built from scratch. It was the best they could come up with in about 1800, and they (eventually) came up with a phenomenal system by any reasonable standard. With the revisions and work that led to SI as it is now, we have an amazingly awesome system of measurement. They did build it from the ground up. We've learned more about measurement and science since then, and we've adapted the system to its current, very mature state. I cannot understand why on earth you consider reforming SI a "critical mission" to address. >Does anybody discuss whether 2+2 is 4? Alas, >if metrology were treated the same way, >If this topic were not so surrounded and >treated pettilly as a political puppet we >would not be even discussing metrication here! >There is NO POLITICS involved in such issues >as it rightfully BELONGS DEFINITIVELY in the >realm of science. But metrology is not the same thing as basic math. For one thing, it is far more important for a person to know basic math than to understand esoteric principles of measurement. I'm not saying that a basic knowledge of SI prefixes is esoteric, but you are talking about the theory of metrology, not basic literacy. Units and systems of measure are political (especially if you include the non-governmental kind of politicking) because policy decisions can have large impacts on economies and daily life. When a nation metricates, it changes its culture to some degree. There can in fact be costs to changing measurement systems. You have many times expressed the desire to legislate changes--how on earth are you going to separate these things from politics? And you are quite wrong on another point. Even fields of study can be quite political. I study computer science, and it is indeed a science. We have quantitative measures, well establish processes and algorithms, and even standards bodies. Yet Computer Science is an extremely political field of study! Just because it is a field of study and scientific doesn't mean it is like 2+2=4. For example, ISO came up with a standard seven-layer network model called OSI. They started like the ground up, like you say, but it utterly failed because it simply wasn't as good as the IP Protocol Graph that came into use. We didn't realize that until later. The history of the metric system has parallels. As another example, the change to IPv6 is, objectively and scientifically, a very worthy goal. Yet it is hard to imagine something more chock full of political and economic variables. Or you can look at the history of JPEG vs. GIF. >They'd have to submit SCIENTIFIC PAPERS to >substantiate their position as to why somthing as >ludicrous as WOMBAT would deserve to be called >metrological! >Please, look at the beauty of this proposal. >Now, one would have to "prove" that WOMBAT is >'coherent', for example, or 'decimal', or 'flexible', >etc! ;-) WOMBAT would stop dead at its tracks! >For once and for all, in sheer disgrace! Average folks already don't pay attention to the scientists at CGPM or whatever it is say so why would they give a hoot what some other scientist somewhere says? >Please, just think about it! Right back at you. Carl
