US system was good for the expansion in Far West 200 years ago. Count steps and thumbs to measure distance and feel the temperature on your skin. Now it has no utility and the US should "surrender" in a democratic fashion to the rest of the world. Of course any definition of a physical constant is valid, like how long I run with one breath right now. But there is already a majority that wins.
The super-slow conversion of the U.S. to metric (2025)
381–390 of 422 posts
Re: The super-slow conversion of the U.S. to metric (2025)
#382Earlier quoted context omitted.
Temperature is the worst metric unit to pick for this. Both the imperial and metric versions of temperature are completely arbitrary. It's really baffling to me that THIS is the one that most people talking about metric superiority cling to. Where metric shines is when you talk about subunits like mg vs g vs kg. You don't do that with temperature almost ever. So so what if water boils at 212F vs 100C? Pinning 100 at…
>Pinning 100 at the boiling point of pure water at standard atmospheric pressure is every bit as arbitrary as Fs original 100F pin to the internal body temperature of a horse. I mean, every unit is arbiturary. But we need to pick something. I don't have any love for either, but F is the easiest to pick fun at when none of the standard temperatures make any sense. 32 for freezing water, 212 for boiing, 98.6 for human…
> none of the standard temperatures make any sense. 32 for freezing water, 212 for boiling, 98.6 for human temperature?
None of those attributes matter much. F is great for talking about the weather in the US, where 0 to 100 is approximately the experienced range through the year. You don't need to know the exact boiling or freezing points of water to know how cold or hot you'll be each day.
Re: The super-slow conversion of the U.S. to metric (2025)
#383Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an engineer, you should not even use temperature at all. All thermodynamic formulas simplify (a lot) if you use the inverse temperature.
You are indeed right that in most numeric computations using the inverse temperature, a.k.a. the reciprocal temperature, is more convenient. Nevertheless, there are many important quantities which are proportional to temperature, e.g. pressure, internal energy, voltage generated by a bandgap reference and so on. Because of this, there are many cases, especially in qualitative reasoning, when using temperature is more…
I'm just saying integrating over a temperature range with T in the denominator is annoying, while it doesn't have to be.
Re: The super-slow conversion of the U.S. to metric (2025)
#384Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I find the imperial system fits in better with that warmth of humanity Right, so you enjoy warmth such as: 1 foot = 12 inches, 1 stone = 14 pounds, 1 pound = 16 ounces. Lots of useless names and numbers to memorize compared to kilo = 1000, milli = 0.001. > in favor of cultural uniqueness and fun over conformity You're writing in impeccable English. As we know, English is an international language and most definitel…
Here in Canada, my family ran a fishing camp with a lot of US customers. I was talking with one of them about metric vs. US units and to demonstrate I said how about this: How many gallons in a cubic mile? And he was able to work it out in his head, and pretty quickly too. Whoa. The point I was trying to make that is than in metric (say, liters per cubic kilometer) you just need to get the number of zeroes right, but…
It's not too difficult to know or calculate inches in a mile:
12 * 3 * 1760 = 12 * 5280 = 63,360
231
63360^3 / 231 = 1,101,117,147,428.571
Re: The super-slow conversion of the U.S. to metric (2025)
#385Earlier quoted context omitted.
The pre decimal systems were built with lots of prime factors. The divisions were less obvious but arguably more convenient (it's often simpler to separate something into 8ths than 10ths, and so on).
I love the way 360 (degrees) divides evenly by so many small integers: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15.
I created 360 shares in a small business I set up many years ago incase we ever needed to a few more share holders
Re: The super-slow conversion of the U.S. to metric (2025)
#386Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that a system where the majority of air temperatures in the vast majority of the country fall between 0 and 100 is slightly more convenient than one in which they fall between -17 and 37. 0 is really cold it doesn’t frequently get colder than that in most of the country. 100 is really hot, in most places it doesn’t get hotter than that. Feet are slightly more convent for…
Was in Fairbanks last weekend and it was -15F. So, having Fahrenheit staying positive for weather in US, is not really an argument. I am fine with Celsius based on water (0 freezing and 100 boiling). But I get that changing is confusing when you have adjusted your whole life to a system. If taught at school and displayed, in half a generation we could move to metric. Like others said groceries are already there.
No one is arguing that temperatures never go outside of 0-100. The argument is that a scale that generally falls between 0-100 is inherently slightly more convenient than that that generally falls between -17 and 37.
Obviously both can be adapter to.
But if you took a group of aliens and asked them to come up with a temperature scale that was only used to convey how cold or warm the temperature felt to humans, they would almost certainly use human body temperature in their design process not the freezing and boiling points of water.
This isn’t to say that Celsius isn’t perfectly fine and superior in most ways. I’m not insulting you or attempting to participate in some kind of culture war.
But if you find yourself unable to agree that one system has some inherent advantages over another, even if they don’t outweigh the disadvantages, you should step back and think a little more objectively.
Re: The super-slow conversion of the U.S. to metric (2025)
#387Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree its having the mental map that matters but my intention was to disagree with the parent comment's claim that Fahrenheit is more appropriate to the "human scale of things". its a small advantage, but I think zero indicating when things might freeze is a more useful than "0 degrees lines up with really darned cold"
To me, below zero Centigrade lines up with "really darned cold". It's all subjective. > zero indicating when things might freeze is useful Of course it is, parent is being silly. Picking some other non-zero random number for freezing just seems absurd to me. But that's because Centigrade is what I am familiar with. Say pick freezing = 12, or 47?. If those numbers for freezing seem absurd to you, then consider that th…
The argument is that a scale that generally falls between 0-100 is inherently slightly more convenient than that that generally falls between -17 and 37.
Obviously both can be adapted to. But if you took a group of aliens and asked them to come up with a temperature scale that was only used to convey how cold or warm the temperature felt to humans, they would almost certainly use human body temperature in their design process not the freezing and boiling points of water.
This isn’t to say that Celsius isn’t perfectly fine and superior in most ways. I’m not insulting anyone or attempting to participate in some kind of culture war.
Celsius is obviously a better scale for determining when water freezes. But I’ve never found myself paying attention to that. Mostly because any problems that I’d worry about related to the water freezing happen well below freezing.
But if you find yourself unable to agree that one system has some inherent advantages over another, even if they don’t outweigh the disadvantages, you should step back and think a little more objectively.
Re: The super-slow conversion of the U.S. to metric (2025)
#388Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me, below zero Centigrade lines up with "really darned cold". It's all subjective. > zero indicating when things might freeze is useful Of course it is, parent is being silly. Picking some other non-zero random number for freezing just seems absurd to me. But that's because Centigrade is what I am familiar with. Say pick freezing = 12, or 47?. If those numbers for freezing seem absurd to you, then consider that th…
The argument is that a scale that generally falls between 0-100 is inherently slightly more convenient than that that generally falls between -17 and 37. Obviously both can be adapted to. But if you took a group of aliens and asked them to come up with a temperature scale that was only used to convey how cold or warm the temperature felt to humans, they would almost certainly use human body temperature in their desig…
> if you took a group of aliens and asked them to come up with a temperature scale that was only used to convey how cold or warm the temperature felt to humans, they would almost certainly use human body temperature in their design process not the freezing and boiling points of water.
This is completely nonsensical. I draw the exact opposite conclusion regarding what some "logical" aliens from planet Vulcan would choose.
> generally falls between -17 and 37.
What are you even talking about? -17 is a complete irrelevance to me, it does not happen, and I often deal with water or objects over 37c. Those are parochial numbers.
Your conclusion is predicated on finding reasons to defend what you're familiar with. There is no objectivity to it. Nor can there be.
Re: The super-slow conversion of the U.S. to metric (2025)
#389Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps, but useless for most purposes. You need to know how think of a coat to wear and you need a mental map from some number to some coat. It doesn't matter what the scale is, just that you have that map.
> 0 lines up with freezing point is useless for most purposes Rubbish. Absolute nonsense. It's very useful. But, each system has points where you can say that it is more convenient . You could defend Fahrenheit all day. I could counter with Celsius usefulness. "below zero" being a synonym for "below freezing" is one of those. But you miss the context - you will defend whichever one you grew up with. You look for reas…
>But, each system has points where you can say that it is more convenient . You could defend Fahrenheit all day. I could counter with Celsius usefulness. "below zero" being a synonym for "below freezing" is one of those.
Of course it does. That’s my entire point. For the intended purpose of measuring air temperature there are some advantages to Fahrenheit. Celsius is not self evidently superior in that regard. Therefore no one using Fahrenheit is going to change unless forced.
The freezing point of water is useful for some things, but I’ve never paid particular attention to 32F because almost all of the bad things I need to worry about related to freezing water happen much lower than that.
So making 32F the 0 point of the scale has few objective benefits to me.
Re: The super-slow conversion of the U.S. to metric (2025)
#390The problem is that Fahrenheit is a bit more convenient for describing the weather. Inches and feet are a bit more convenient for measuring human scale things and for being easily divisible by more numbers. And we’re used to the rest of it. Unless someone comes along and forces it on you, for the average person, there’s not enough incentive to switch.
> Inches and feet are a bit more convenient for measuring human scale things nope, this is mere familiarity. You find it more natural because you're more used to it, nothing more. There is nothing convenient about a system where "below zero" and "below freezing" are not synonyms. Or at least that's how I find it. because of what I'm used to. But at least I realise that might be a fact about me, not a fact about the w…
I replied to you above for temperature but for human scale measurement, if you were to design a system for human scale measurement from scratch, you’d likely make 10 units equal to the average height (you could also argue for making 1 unit equal to that).
Feet are closer to that ideal than meters. That’s all that I meant. Also 12 inches is divisible by 3 and 6. And if you get into fractions of an inch, you always stick with powers of 2 which makes some math easier. Some math so much easier in metric.
The more important factor is obviously familiarity. Both systems clearly work. But neither is inherently superior in all applications.