Bill, Only the Base Units of SI are to be *redefined* to become more precise. The *definitions* of *derived* units do *not* change! Although all units derived from SI units are potentially improved in precision of realization, you are stretching credibility to claim that "ALL units will be more precisely *defined* by the new definitions." There is a clear distinction between *definition* and *realization* which are erased in your comments. Gene.
---- Original message ---- >Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 22:59:15 -0500 >From: Bill Hooper <[email protected]> >Subject: [USMA:49932] Re: New BIPM web page on the "New SI" -- possible >revision >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > > On Feb 24 , at 12:46 PM, <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Bill, Which of these variations, apart from their > lengths, do you like? > Parts in (...) optional: > > "Base Units of SI (to be) More Precisely Defined" > > "Base Units (of SI) Defined More Precisely" > > "Units of SI (to be) Defined Independent of > Artifacts" > > "Metric Units (to be) Defined Numerically > (independent of Artifacts)" > > Gene. > > None of the above, because: > a. "Base Units of SI (to be) More Precisely > Defined" > But ALL units, not just SI will be more precisely > defined by the new definitions. Don't "blame it" on > SI. > > b. "Base Units (of SI) Defined More Precisely" > It is NOT just about SI; thus this one might be OK > if the parenthetical reference to SI is omitted. > > c. "Units of SI (to be) Defined Independent of > Artifacts" > But it is NOT just SI units that will independent of > artifacts; Ye Olde English units will be also. > > d. "Metric Units (to be) Defined Numerically > (independent of Artifacts)" > It is NOT just metric units that will be defined > differently. It is ALL units of ALL systems. > Most of the other ways that people have tried to > find would be just fine IF these phrases would be > used only by those who are well aware of the > technicalities involved. Those people ("we" > included, if I may be so bold) understand what is > being changed (and what is not). > However, any reference to "changing SI" or "changing > metric" will be viewed by the general public as > meaning that things like the metre and the kilogram > are being changed (in size), which the general > public will believe means that SI and metric units > weren't good enough to start with, so they were > probably all wrong in the first place, and therefore > the metric system is inaccurate, stupid, bad, a plot > by (take your pick) the communists, the French, or > al–Qaida, too uncertain to be a useful measurement > system, etc., etc., etc. and more etc. > It is the perception of the general public that I am > concerned about when we start talking about "New > SI", etc. I'm hoping we insist upon a way of > describing what is being done that does NOT indicate > that "the metric system" is being changed. I think > (b.) above, without the reference to SI, would be > one acceptable solution, but it is not the only > solution and maybe not even the best solution. > > Bill Hooper > 1800 mm tall* > Fernandina Beach, Florida, USA > *same size millimetres before and after new > definitions are adopted. > ========================== > SImplification Begins With SI. > ==========================
