Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 4165842" data-attributes="member: 32536">I think your statement regarding the acre is a better argument for redefining the meaning of the acre, than it is a statement that the acre is a bad unit. Maybe  "1 acre = how much land a tractor can cover in an hour" or something? Also, I stand by cups. Unless the actual size of a normal mug or teacup is vastly different in the US and in metric countries, it certainly a common and intuitive unit.Erg... Please don't do that... No one goes through the whole set of steps between feet and miles. Just like people familiar with metric don't convert centimeters into decimeters, then decimeters into meters, but instead just multiply by 100 to convert directly, people using traditional measurements mostly just relate every measure of length to how it is defined by the foot. 12 inches = 1 foot. 3 hands = 1 foot. 3 feet = 1 yard. 5280 feet = 1 mile. You are more likely to see someone convert yards to feet, and then feet to miles, than you are going to see someone directly convert yards to miles. In both systems, it is simply remembering the common multiplication values of a single most commonly-used unit. Besides, for anything short of miles people tend to just use feet anyways (for example, the heights of mountains is typically given in thousands of feet).Also, you are mistaken regarding the periodic table thing. 1 Avagadro's number of molecules (also known as one Mole of molecules) converts the molecular weight (in AMUs) into grams. Because substances vary greatly with regard to density, it is impossible to use a unit of volume to make that conversion.Also, I question the original design of the metric system, if the best device for relating the units involves combining "odd" measurement values of common units. Why is the relation made between kilograms, liters, and decameters? Why not directly between meters, grams, and liters? Wouldn't that be a lot simpler? Either way, though, such measurement correlations don't serve any practical use in day to day life. Such things are only useful if you need to make an improvised measuring device, which doesn't come up all that much.Well, why do you need to convert to higher units, then? Or rather... Does metric really have higher units at all? In a sense, any metric unit of distance other than the meter is pretty much just shorthand for scientific notation values of the meter. A megameter is notation for 10^6 meters, nothing more and nothing less. Why can't you do this with traditional units? Why can't I just say there are megafeet or kilomiles, or even just 10^6 feet and 10^3 miles, and get the best benefits of both systems?Also, is your statement 100% true? Can you really convert meters to astronomical units by multiplying to ten? Can you convert meters to light years by multiplying by ten? Can you convert meters to degrees of latitude or longitude by multiplying by ten?Yes, this is turning into a fun little discussion, and just to make it even more fun, I think I will bring up an example that highlights the interesting nature of the distinctions being made: degrees vs. radians.There are 360 degrees in a circle, and 2*pi radians in a circle. The degrees measurement is the traditional one, which features all of the normal benefits and drawbacks of traditional units. Degrees are divided by a lot of different numbers easily, and are not in base ten, so they are intuitive rather than decimal. Degrees also are terrible units for mathematical calculation (I once made my old calculus teacher flinch in pain when I mentioned the idea of using degrees in integration). Meanwhile, radians are absolutely beautiful units for mathematical calculation and scientific use, and are the SI unit for measuring angles.So, people who grew up with metric... Which do you say, that an angle is 45 degrees, or pi/4 radians?</blockquote>

Verification