When the yard became 0.9144 m, it was effectively made *less* not more
accurate than when it was 0.91443992 m
For someone like myself 0.00003992m is a pretty small amount for something
that could never be measured to that sort of scale on a brass bar in
Trafalgar square - and small enough never to have a problem in my life. In
fact its probably about the same distance when talking about how the
accuracy of the metre got better defined over the years.
"You doubt it" - which means that the view your expressing is an opinion.
I hope you can now see from the detailed historical account (Cardarelli) I
have since posted that it was more than just an opinion.
Yes - thanks for that - very informative and explains things quite well.
I've yet to hear an argument for retaining the yard indefinitely, in spite
of all the practical advantages of a single easy system of measurement,
that is anything other than emotional.
When people talk about things being "100 yards down the road" I believe it's
one of history, habit and convenience rather than emotion.
I suspect that more than 98% of people do not view the "metric and imperial
debate" as important, and thus probably don't have an emotional "cling" to
imperial or emotional "compulsion" to metric.
My involvement in the debate is one of a like of both systems without
requiring to be told that I'm 50% wrong - that's all. And despite this I'm
still in that 2% theoretical figure I mentioned above ;-)
