Thank You gene. I know what you are saying and I agree. But when comparing SI to everything else it is easy to compare them generally as comparing systems. It is a lot simpler to say "use of multiple systems" then to say "use of one system and a whole lot of non systems". I know it is technically incorrect, but i'm going to take simplicity over correctness. But when I do you can rest assure I'm thinking SI is the only true system.
Does that work for you? I'm curious though, is there anyone who does see English units as a system and for what reason do they? Afterall, there are two sides of the coin. Jerry ________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, February 1, 2009 2:15:00 PM Subject: [USMA:42795] Only "System of Units" (SI) Jerry, As has already been noted here, only one *system* of units, the SI, exists in the world, which meets all three minimum requirements for recognition as a "system" of units of measurement. Allow me to explain in more detail. Requirements for a "system" of units are: 1. Uniqueness- There is one and only one coherent unit of measurement for each quantity in the system. 2. Coherence- Every unit relates to the other units in the system without numerical factors other than one (1). Factors such as 12, 3, 5280, etc. are never used to relate the units of the system. The more exacting definition of coherent units relates the coherent units with the equations for their corresponding quantities. See NIST SP 330. 3. Completeness- A coherent unit is defined for every quantity of interest is science or technology. Gene. ---- Original message ---- >Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 09:40:44 -0800 (PST) >From: Jeremiah MacGregor <[email protected]> >Subject: [USMA:42771] Re: Small item seen on TV >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> >... > I'm learning more about the situation from this > forum and I see things differently then before. I > see where the use of multiple systems creates a > mess...
