I’m rather surprised that Kilopascal has taken to attacking my motives. I don't know what status Kilopascal has in this mailing list, nor do I have any hope of convincing someone who has decided they already know so much about me, but I’d like to offer the following responses in case others think that Kilopascal knows what they’re talking about. I can guarantee you that Kilopascal doesn’t. I’d like any moderator or administrator of this USMA list to pipe in, if in fact this is not an appropriate forum for asking these types of questions. If a single moderator/administrator (Kilopascal or not) feels like I am trying to “trick” or “trap” people then I will unsubscribe from this mailing list as quickly as I possibly can. I was referred here by Paul Trusten a few days ago, and I could only assume that this was an appropriate forum. I don’t view the metric system (nor the imperial one) as a religion, that has to be accepted by faith. If I have ventured into the wrong mailing list, like I said, please let me know and I won’t trouble folks here. Honestly one person I can just ignore, but if everyone is like this then I won’t even bother with this place. I’m not trying to “trick” anyone. I do have some questions about the metric system, and I’d like some answers. That’s really all there is to it. Yes I claim to live in southern California (in fact I do live here). And yes I call the imperial system of measurement, the imperial system. OK now let’s work out a syllogism that demonstrates that I in fact DON’T live in socal—using only the facts in this paragraph. Go for it. The same goes for my alleged membership in any BWMA group. Sorry to disappoint anyone here but I’m not a member of that group—or of the USMA either; I've never been a member of any pro-metric or pro-imperial group. As I said, I joined the list a few days ago, give or take. I came across Pat’s articles on his own site, sometime in the last year or two. If anyone is thinking that only USMA mailing list subscribers can download Pat’s files all you have to do is go to his site and see for yourself. Paul “Hamlet” Rittman Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2011 15:07:21 -0700 From: [email protected] Subject: [USMA:50274] re: astronomical measurements To: [email protected]
The archives turn up pretty often in Google searches (for me), and he is in history. Seems a natural that he would find it. I think I overcomplicated his "simple" system. As I said, not really important if I convince him; I just don't want his arguments gaining traction with people on the fence. I simply try to make them look not quite as solid as advertised. From: Kilopascal <[email protected]> To: John M. Steele <[email protected]>; U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, April 3, 2011 5:36:10 PM Subject: Re: [USMA:50264] re: astronomical measurements Interesting. He hasn't responded to your post in 2 weeks. Obviously you didn't fall into his trap there and no one else bit at his bait either. Do you see his trick? He starts out by claiming to want to use the metric system and being sympathetic towards it but then he suddenly does a 180 and lo and behold the metric system has all of these practical problems that make it difficult in real life situations. I'm sure he was hoping to find a whole slew of people agreeing with him that metric is difficult in real life situations. He claims to live in the Southern California, yet calls USC as imperial. This tells me he must be involved with the UK BWMA group. As for being a history instructor (I didn't see the word professor, so I can't say if he really is one) I don't see where a basic knowledge of old units should interfere in using SI units everywhere else in ones daily life. A better way to judge the suitability of metric units in life would be to ask those who have lived in metric countries their whole lives and know nothing else. Obviously if there is no difficulty for them there can be no difficulty for Americans. When I took required history classes in high school and college I don't recall us ever encountering measurements at least where it stopped us until we we able to understand them in modern definitions. We studied mostly events and dates. Can you imagine someone insisting that every student must learn ancient Egyptian, Babylonian, Hebrew, Greek and Roman units and their exact meaning so they won't have a problem knowing what they mean when encountered? I believe that Han Maenen is involved with historical documents and encounters ancient measuring words from time to time but that hasn't made him an anti-metric convert. I wonder how long he has been a subscriber to the USMA listserver. He claims to have read Pat's piece on the millimetre but if he only signed on recently how would he be aware of the document? I don't recall Pat mentioning it recently. He may be aware of the archives, but how? All of the anti-metrics from the BWMA are aware of it. They monitor the comments al of the time to see what actions pro-metrics may be taking that they can hope to undo. The more one studies this man and his posts, one can easily see that there is something rotten in Denmark. Maybe the anti-metrics are getting bored, so they have decided to light up the metric forums. This guy here and Warwick Cairns at the UKMA metric views. From: John M. Steele Sent: Sunday, 2011-04-03 15:45 To: Kilopascal Subject: Re: [USMA:50264] re: astronomical measurements It was not a long exchange, one note each. He may have guessed it is me in both responses. It is neither entirely obvious nor well concealed. I was a bit surprised to see such similar wording here. I guess he was hoping for a different answer. Here is a link: http://forum.onlineconversion.com/showthread.php?t=15330&highlight=metric+personal Please note the site is mostly about conversion math and not policy of metrication. (Pat would hate it). He is a history prof. He may need to be aware of all the old units. However, interconverting each to all others is a PITA. He would benefit from using metric as a "common denominator" and intermediary in conversion. From: Kilopascal <[email protected]> To: John M. Steele <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, April 3, 2011 3:24:20 PM Subject: Re: [USMA:50264] re: astronomical measurements Really, which board is that? Does he know it is you in both places? I find it strange he would ask you a similar question on two different boards. Did he appear there about the same time as here? I'm sure he only made such a comment in order not to be thought of as anti-metric off the bat and be totally ignored. Now, in his exchanges with you did he tell you what he does for a living and if he does use metric on the job? It seems to me you are the one doing all of the revealing and he is guiding you in what to reveal. From: John M. Steele Sent: Sunday, 2011-04-03 14:09 To: Kilopascal Subject: Re: [USMA:50264] re: astronomical measurements Actually, he posted a similar question on another board I frequent (its primary emphasis is conversions). There I made the point that the auto industry is metric and I preferred using the same measurement system at home and at work. (He seemed to be thinking metric was ok at work but preferred Customary at home, much like the first question he posted here.) From: Kilopascal <[email protected]> To: John M. Steele <[email protected]>; U.S.. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, April 3, 2011 1:47:16 PM Subject: Re: [USMA:50264] re: astronomical measurements Maybe a better strategy than have him lure you into talking about all these circumstances, would be for you to switch the topic over to something that gives an example of successful metrication. Since the auto industry metricated, I'm sure you have plenty of examples where your work was simplified and huge costs were saved. Even in your daily life. Notice how he doesn't ask Jim Frysinger these questions. Jim told him how he and his wife have made metric work for them, something this guy did not want to hear. He wants to find someone (just one person and you are it because you bit at the bait) to keep the flow going where he can continue to bombard the list server with distracting examples showing how intuitive USC really is. Even though you are responding, you are giving him the opportunity to speak to the others and attempt to put doubt in their minds, especially the silent ones who don't post. There is a method to his madness. You will see that if you do as Jim did and don't play the game by his rules, he will disappear. You will never convince a person who is hardened against metrication even if you offered him his mass in gold.. From: John M. Steele Sent: Sunday, 2011-04-03 13:13 To: Kilopascal Subject: Re: [USMA:50264] re: astronomical measurements I have no clue whether I will convince him. By offering a credible counteropinion, I hope to keep him from convincing (misleading?) others. Convincing him would just be a nice "plus" to my real purpose. Not a snowball's chance in hell that he will convince me.. From: Kilopascal <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, April 3, 2011 11:29:17 AM Subject: [USMA:50264] re: astronomical measurements John, When you read his posts, doesn't the terms "distract" and "divert" come to mind? Do you really believe that you will convince this guy that using only metric units would be best in the long term or is he going to succeed in putting doubt in your mind that possibly these old obscure units really do have a use? 150 Gm just doesn't make me feel tingly all over like a good dose of AU. [USMA:50264] re: astronomical measurements John M. Steele Sun, 03 Apr 2011 07:41:49 -0700 No. I find comparing in meters (with a suitable prefix) gives me a better sense of scale than mixing AU, light years, parsecs, and other obscure units with obscure inter-relationships. Determining that a light year is some 63000 AU is not particularly helpful. As a general comparison, it is much easier to learn a few metric prefixes, usable with all units, to provide a short hand alternative to scientific notation for scale than to learn all the absurd interrelationships of Customary units. ________________________________ From: Paul Rittman <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, April 3, 2011 10:24:24 AM Subject: [USMA:50263] re: astronomical measurements Knowing that the radius of earth's orbit is about 150 Gm, the scale between solar and interstellar distances is clearer to me than the mix of measurement units now used. John, when you say that, do you mean that you prefer to use the term au, or that you simply tell them that the au is 150 Gm, and then go on to use the metric numbers/terms? I do agree, that using the au does seem to provide a bit of scale, that even the term “light-year” doesn’t have. “Light-year” is very good for giving one a definition that you don’t easily forget, but isn’t good for much else, in that it is (almost) impossible to visualize the amount of space that is actually traversed in a year by anything, to say nothing of a ray of light. Au at least allows you to compare the stellar distance to our own solar system. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3547 - Release Date: 04/02/11 No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3547 - Release Date: 04/02/11 No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3547 - Release Date: 04/02/11
