What nonsense! It's really saddening to see someone still trying to push the old lame reasons for lashing out at the SI system. However, I find it imperative that we once again clarify these "myths" below, please.
... > > There are other reasons, besides lethargy or > perversity, > > why SI has not quite caught on everywhere! > > > > One major reason for the failure of SI to become > universal > > is that its fundamental units are ill-chosen and > have POOR > > ERGONOMICS for homo sapiens, Utter nonsense! Anyone who is familiar and comfortable with SI units has absolutely NO complaint whatsoever about this! How can one find a proper prefix for the application in question 'ill-chosen'??? Are you not happy with mm (too small), fine, use the cm. Certainly the range of numbers that would emerge from whatever prefix one chooses should do just fine! That's the very beauty of the SI system this individual seems to (conveniently perhaps?...) forget. And how can one talk about ergonomics when human beings are SO DIVERSE in size themselves??? This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever! (And this guy must be told about this!) > whereas the basic > units > > of the "English" system are comfortable and > suitable for the > > biological dimensions of our species (largely > because those > > units evolved from usage, wherein competing > alternatives > > faded out when found to be inferior.) I honestly don't think so! I find NO comfort feeling around feet, inches and fractions thereof! Their cumbersome nature and the silliness of conversion factors are plenty enough for ANYONE to reject this... "system". Besides, one cannot possibly consider ONE application (human-related applications) enough reason to use it for ALL applications! That's the crux of the matter this guy doesn't seem to understand. We MUST define a (true!) system that would work REGARDLESS of the application in question. One that would provide flexibility of units to suit the application. Certainly the ifp system fails miserably with that as it's too rigid to be of any use! > Regardless > of the > > silly ratios between them (which Thomas Jefferson > tried > > to reconcile, with his own proposals for a > decimally-based > > English system), the approximate sizes of the > English units > > are far superior to those of SI. Gobbledygook, again!... Perhaps for ONE type of application, and even there this is highly debatable as it plays on people's level of comfort and familiarity, which are completely subjective reasons!!! > > Consider: > > > > 1. The gram is too doggone small! ?? Small for what??? Again, one MUST think of the application FIRST, and THEN *choose* an appropriate "size" for such purposes. What other system can afford such luxury??? Certainly NOT the rigid ifp "system"! > Most human > usage > > requires double-digit or triple-digit numbers of > them to > > be at all useful or meaningful in everyday human > activity. Then why doesn't this individual complain about the use of feet in aviation (which invariably and almost always leads to a *minimum* of 3 digits???) For crying out loud, at least be consistent and true to your argument, sir! > > Kilogram, might have been OK as the basic unit for > > humans (tho I think it is a bit too hefty), but > that is not > > a basic unit and requires a prefix as well as a > number. This goes to show that this guy does not seem to even know the SI system tenets very well! However, I must concur with him on one aspect: indeed this fundamental/basic unit DOES require a prefix! I hope all of us here can see the problem in being averse to change REGARDLESS of what's being changed! If we're not willing to consider important changes to things that would contribute to their being BETTER, then I'm afraid to say that we're NO BETTER than guys like this!!! I still must insist that one MUST continue with the pursuit of perfection. I.e. to be ready to implement and accept changes where they'd be warranted (more on this topic below). > > By contrast, note that - despite their rather > inconvenient > > ratios "ounces" and "pounds" are very comfortable > in > > human terms for everyday quantities I don't really care (and no one should!) if people are "comfortable" around such 'inconvenient ratios' (at least he recognized that, which is a good thing!). The fact of the matter (which is irrefutable) is that the presence of ratios can NEVER be overcome! They are a *nuisance* for manual manipulations, period, no matter how comfortable one is around them! And this is ALL that matters, really (please remember the KISS principle!). > >... Likewise, "feet" and "inches" (again, > despite > > their unfortunate, arbitrary ratios) allow us to > easily > > describe most things we see and handle daily, > using small, > > whole numbers (with "miles" available to > approximate > > distances to be travelled or things beyond the > horizon). > > Sigh... Same old untenable arguments, please see *principles* already discussed above! > > 2. Basing the meter on one ten-millionth of the > estimated > > distance from pole to equator may have been very > > satisfying, intellectually, but the result is a > fundamental > > unit that is awkwardly large Ditto above! >... > > 4. Seconds, the fundamental time unit, is not bad > at all. > > However, common time reconning, which is unlikely > to > > change (and which the promoters of SI dare not > propose), > > employs non-decimal multiples of the second, such > as > > 60 and 24. > > And how am I glad this guy brought this up! INDEED. This inherited idyotic "system" for time reckoning MUST eventually go! No question about that. And if this guy is happy with the "size" of the second, I think it would be fair to state that he should also be with a new 0.864 second size!... ;-) > > 5. Derived units, such as those for speed, also > suffer > > from the non-ergonomic choices of fundamental > units. And should the second change to the ip (=0.864 s) such problems he's highlighting here would simply vanish! > > Consider velocity, for example. Speed limit signs > are > > in Km/h and automobile speedometers report the > number > > of thousands of meters that would be travelled > with no > > acceleration for the next 3,600 seconds! (Meters > per > > second would make far more sense, in my opinion, > > but that's not the issue, here.) > > Agreed! And I know that this "discussion" is anathema to many here. But, quite frankly, how can ANYONE here resist the extremely powerful positive point about using the ip? Consider for instance: 200 km/ki, which would precisely be the same as 200 m/i! No one can beat that! :-) In other words change the hideous 60-60-24 crap to a smooth 100-1000 framework and presto! Case closed! > > 6. The base ten, itself, is part of the problem. A vehement NO!!! While the duodecimal *base* aspect would indeed have merits, research has apparently already *proven* the human brain works a lot better under the decimal base! Therefore, ONCE the base is chosen, one would have NO CHOICE but to build systems AROUND it! > > Unless the Duodecimal Society succeeds in > convincing > > the public (and the legislators) that a radix > divisible by > > 2, 3, and 4 is preferable to one divisible by 2 > and 5, NO chance! Therefore, moot. > > or unless those in the computer industr spread the > word > > about the benefits of octal or hex, Evidently inferior, EVEN to the decimal base! (ONE prime divisibility ONLY). So, ditto, moot. > we are > probably > > stuck with using the number of our fingers for our > > place-value notation. That alone does not make > the > > powers of ten particularly useful, comfortable, or > > natural - especially when large powers are > required. > > Unfortunately our friend here is unfamiliar with the research I just commented on above (and please don't ask me for the reference, I've lost that one zillion years ago, unfortunately. I've just read it and shoved it, what can I say?...). But we're just not 'stuck' to using decimals, but it's just common sense that we continue to do so. Otherwise, the race would be on to develop something ENTIRELY from scratch to accomodate the duodecimal base aspect. >... > > So much for my tirade regarding SI, which is not > at all > > in opposition to having a rational, > decimally-based system. Good! If he's sincere about it. I just hope my humble contribution above would help him a bit more "see the light". :-) > > It is sad that the attempt was flawed by poor (and > untested) > > fundamental unit choices. ? I'm not convinced the sizes of SI units constituted 'poor' choices, honestly. Quite the contrary, I think scientists were very fortunate with such choices for quite a few of them (even like the meter, for example! But, true, one may ONLY be able to truly appreciate that one if one ALSO changed the angle framework from the silly 360 degree stuff to 400, for instance). > Too bad that this > failure > > (or, at least, partial failure) will serve to > prevent universal > > adoption of such a system for the for the > forseeable future. > > I don't think so! We just need as a *global village* to be more forceful in twisting US arms into adopting it. And this is EVERYONE of us' job to do! > > Itruly wish Thomas Jefferson had been as > successful > > in his attempt to redefine the inch as one-tenth > of the > > typical length of a shoe (and other simlar ratios, > involving > > the then-very-approximate English units), as he > was in his > > spectacularly-successful innovation of decimal > currency > > (which even the Brits adopted, a couple of > centuries after > > our revolution). > > ? But wait a second/a little here. Wasn't he against the decimal base for starters? How can he now "root" for the success of an introduction of a "decimal" (SIC) inch? I don't get it... > > Sorry that, after all this, I have some sort of > brilliant > > solution to propose (other than reposting > speed-limit > > signs in meters-per secod, which at least gives > some > > clue about stopping distance!), but I do not > expect that > > co-existence of the two systems (or three systems, > > if one includes the "MKS" vs. "cgs" dichotomy) > > to wither anytime soon or even within our > lifetimes. > > And Bruce might be right after all on this one... Sadly... Marcus > > Bruce Alan Martin... ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
