I still don't understand how billionths of a microgauss is any more understandable to the "main audience which is American" than the tesla. Am I missing something here?
The other false hood is the belief that Americans do in fact understand FFU. I'd bet the people who would read his articles would have to have not only an interest in the subject matter but have some sort of science training. Which means an understanding of the metric system. The main audience that he refers to who does not have an interest in science and is not going to even going look at his article past the title. Therefore it is most likely safe to say that the people who would read his article is metric numerate. Does anyone disagree with this assertion? I would think that dumbing down to make the article attractive to the least common denominator may in fact slow the process of learning and understanding and not increase it. I guess some people just don't get it! BTW, it isn't centi-dollars, it's centidollars. This guy needs to brush up on the rules of SI. I'm sure he would be embarrassed if he wrote a report full of spelling errors. The same should be for errors in unit usage as well. Euric ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pat Naughtin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, 2004-04-28 05:23 Subject: [USMA:29647] Re: Gravity Probe B measurements > Dear Ron, > > Thanks for your response. It gives me several things to think on. Not least > of which is your thought about Shakespeare writing in English, as he was > writing at about the same time (1585) that Simon Stevin also rejected Latin > to popularise the decimal measures that led to the metric system. Indeed it > was a fertile time for both of them as we now quote Shakespeare's words and > Stevin's decimal numbers on an almost daily basis. However I think that > Simon Stevin has the advantage over William Shakespeare in numbers of daily > quotations! > > I have sent a copy of your response to the USMA mail list for their > information. > > Cheers, > > Pat Naughtin > Geelong, Australia > -- > > on 2004-04-28 06.19, Koczor, Ron at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Thanks for your note, Pat. Rest assured that what we do as engineers and > > scientists is not reflected in what we do as communicators. When we speak > > to our peers we (mostly) use metrics. But when we talk to average people > > (the bulk of whom still exist oblivious to the advantages of metrics) we > > choose to communicate in a language they understand. > > > > There is a communications argument for choosing one set of units or the > > other, but not both. Many of our stories describe physics or biology or > > other complex topics to readers who are unfamiliar with the material. These > > stories are crafted to explain the underlying science with as little mental > > friction as possible. Mental friction is something that generates heat, but > > no learning or information. So, for instance, if I chose to describe frame > > dragging in tensor form, that would increase the mental friction to such a > > degree that most readers would burn out in the first or second > > paragraph--all heat and no learning. > > > > However, being the science-oriented people that we are, we choose to create > > a small amount of mental friction by usually providing conversions and > > hoping for the best. The other thing our writers do is follow the lead of > > the people they interview. We do not ask our principals to change their > > language. > > > > You know, I understand that when Shakespeare wrote his stories, many people > > objected to them because he wrote in English, not Latin. Of course the > > intelligentsia would have appreciated them more in Latin, but the people he > > aimed his work to would have abandoned him in droves. > > > > Perhaps we Americans need to be told we are foolish for not joining the rest > > of the civilized world; but, until that happens, [EMAIL PROTECTED] has to write > > to its main audience which is American. > > > > That's my two cents worth...or should I say my two centi-dollars! (-: > > > > Ron > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Pat Naughtin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 2:40 PM > > To: Koczor, Ron > > Cc: U.S. Metric Association > > Subject: Gravity Probe B measurements > > > > Dear Mr. Koczor, > > > > I am writing to you as a matter of courtesy to let you see a copy of a > > (humorous ?) note that I sent to the mail list of the United States Metric > > Association eleven days ago. > > > > As you will see, it is my belief that re-changing modern metric units to old > > measures can also have the effect of making NASA look rather foolish to the > > rest of us around the world. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Pat Naughtin LCAMS > > Geelong, Australia > > > > ** > > > > Dear All, > > > > Over the last few days, I have been hearing excitedly breathless reports > > about the 'Gravity Probe B' space mission. Sadly, all of the data I heard on > > radio was in old inch-foot-pound measures. > > > > For example: > > . the craft is to fly at 400 miles high > > . the gyroscope sphere was to be an almost perfect 1.5 inches diameter > > (when it wasn't 'about the size of a golf ball) > > . if the gyroscope was expanded to the size of the Earth its biggest bulge > > would be 8 feet > > . the Dewar flask to contain the science module is 9 feet tall > > . the Dewar flask holds 645 gallons of superfluid liquid helium > > > > I suspected that the radio stations were simply reporting directly from a > > NASA site, and sure enough, I found it at: > > > > <http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/f_gpb-parts.html> > > > > It amused me somewhat to see this line: > > > > 'If Albert Einstein were alive today he'd be relaxing in his easy chair, > > pipe in hand, very calmly awaiting the results of this historic mission and > > probably marvelling at the technology it takes to probe his 89 year-old > > theory'. > > > > Perhaps, what they meant to say was: > > > > 'If Albert Einstein were alive today he'd be "frantically worrying " while > > . . . awaiting the results "(he couldn't possibly know who was doing what > > conversions, from what old measures, with what conversion factors, and with > > what errors)" of this historic mission and probably marvelling at the > > technology "(at least wondering how NASA could possibly produce such > > advanced technology when they are clearly dedicated to the encouragement of > > seriously old and proven difficult-to-use measures)" it takes to probe his > > 89 year-old theory'. > > > > Let us hope that the remaining components of this mission aren't equally > > suffering from the same mish-mash of old and new measuring units that led to > > the loss of the Mars Climate Orbiter. > > > > I can only hope for the best for this extremely important mission, as quiet > > confidence in sound technology, well-applied, is clearly out of order given > > the above context. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Pat Naughtin > > Geelong, Australia > >
