>middleschool metric measurement system "WOW THIS IS EASY" >highschool "WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS IMPERIAL MEASUREMENT SHIT?! I WAS NEVER TAUGHT THIS" I blame the Americans

File: 115 KB, 433x323, dougnuts.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Dec 10 06:51:02 2011 No.4122880 [Reply] [Original]

>middleschool metric measurement system "WOW THIS IS EASY"
>highschool "WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS IMPERIAL MEASUREMENT SHIT?! I WAS NEVER TAUGHT THIS"

I blame the Americans

>>	Harriet !x6oGOnISPY Sat Dec 10 06:52:17 2011 No.4122881 Where do you live? Metric is usually used at high school as well.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 06:55:33 2011 No.4122887 >>4122881 Canada Honestly I was never taught about the Imperial measurement system till I got into highschool the shit still doesn't make any sense to me.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 10:28:37 2011 No.4123332 >>4122887 that's because it doesn't make any sense why would they make you use imperial when the whole world uses metric?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 10:29:46 2011 No.4123337 File: 114 KB, 568x1455, imperial.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4123332 U R JUST 2 DUMB 2 UNDERSTAND THE GLORY OF THE IMPERIAL SYSTEM GOD BLESS AMERICA DURF HURF HERP

Anonymous Sat Dec 10 10:33:10 2011 No.4123346

>second year of engineering
>imperial system everywhere.

why? because the professor said we are going to have to work with someone from America someday, then we would have to be able to convert between it.
why do we have to learn their shit and cant they just do metric?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 10:35:34 2011 No.4123351 >>4123346 You have to understand the mind of the average American. If they abandon American tradition and bend their knee to something such as metric, the terrorists will have won. That, or they are too stupid to understand how metric works.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 10:36:34 2011 No.4123353 >>4123346 Because America runs this rock.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 10:36:34 2011 No.4123354 >yfw I have an 5 cm cock >yfw that's twice as long in inches

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 10:36:34 2011 No.4123356 I never really understood the Imperial system much. What do you do when you want to go smaller than an inch? How would an ordinary person even measure something that is like.. 1/1000th of an inch? Why can't you people just use 10s?!

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 10:36:34 2011 No.4123358 >>4123351 What you dont like America? Are you a-a-a COMMUNIST?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 10:40:06 2011 No.4123367 File: 157 KB, 1004x614, lol.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4123354 2 inches? I just have to include this captcha

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 10:42:14 2011 No.4123372 >>4123353 lol no

>>	GL !Bgpe2HycPk Sat Dec 10 10:42:14 2011 No.4123373 File: 11 KB, 307x327, costanza-.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4123367 >using noko on /sci/

Anonymous Sat Dec 10 10:43:29 2011 No.4123374

>>4123346

American here.
My Science classes ALWAYS use the metric system.
The introductory level classes occasionally used the imperial system, but that was only to teach people how to unit conversions, and to give people a sense of scale of how big metric units were.

After the first week or so, you're expected to know how to convert units, so they don't bother testing it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 10:46:45 2011 No.4123381 Metric system is superior at science and measuring drugs. But it is shit tier at everyday measurements. You should be glad.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 10:48:53 2011 No.4123384 >>4123332 Because the rest of the world can go eat a dick. And also Canada is right next to America, the most powerful country in the world.

Anonymous Sat Dec 10 10:49:02 2011 No.4123387

>>4123381
How does it suck at every day measurements? In Holland, we use..

100 grams = Ons (Ounce)
500 grams = Pond (Pound)

So if you want 25 grams, you either just say a quarter of an ons or 25 grams.

The same applies to kilometers, meters, centimeters, milimeters and so on and so forth.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 10:51:26 2011 No.4123393 >>4123346 >cant they just do metric? Because America is superior to your shitty nation, therefore you must learn our ways to survive in the business world.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 10:57:05 2011 No.4123404 >>4122880 >I WAS NEVER TAUGHT THIS If you're unfamiliar with a particular unit, look it up and use the relevant conversion. "I was never taught this" is the cry of the unmotivated.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 11:05:53 2011 No.4123420 I'll just use this trusty frying pan as a drying pan.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 11:06:02 2011 No.4123424 Wtf do i care about the retarded American system

Anonymous Sat Dec 10 11:12:50 2011 No.4123440

The metric system is pretty stupid though.

The distance light goes in 1/299,792,458 of a second = 1 meter

1/299,792,458? What the fuck kind of number is that? They couldn't round that to 1/300,000,000? Or even use a power of 10 like they always have a hardon for and say 1/1,000,000,000?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 11:24:09 2011 No.4123464 >>4123440 I don't get your point...that seconds should be a different length? They aren't metric. Or are you saying that metric was built on that light traveling distance in a fraction of a second, because it wasn't

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 11:24:09 2011 No.4123466 File: 35 KB, 673x983, English_length_units_graph.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4122880 A good illustration of Metric vs. imperial for lengths. This alone is why I prefer metric.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 11:27:33 2011 No.4123471 >>4123466 >implying anyone uses any of those besides foot, inch, mile, and pound.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 11:28:42 2011 No.4123475 >>4123471 >foot, inch, mile That's already bad enough. Also >pound >length

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 11:29:49 2011 No.4123476 >>4123466 >km is longer/lower than a mile oh shit nigger wtf are you doing

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 11:32:05 2011 No.4123481 >>4123440 Metric system was invented before we found about the speed of light. Besides, we don't usually need to handle things in so large scale, so traditional length of metre does just fine.

Anonymous Sat Dec 10 11:44:33 2011 No.4123513

No system of measurment is any worse than any other. Its all arbitrary values given labels.

Oh so metric is based on ten? what is ten and how do you determine how much is one. its an arbitrary value that has been standardized. every inch is exactly the same every centimeter is the same, they are not inherently different than each other they are just different arbitrary values given standardization.

I can take the length of a toad and say this is one toad a cat is an average of three toads long and it is no different

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 11:45:41 2011 No.4123520 >>4123513 Typical Amerifat who doesn't understand the point of being coherent.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 11:45:41 2011 No.4123521 >imperial measurement But OP, why do they teach you that shit if you are not from America? I have never studied that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 11:46:49 2011 No.4123527 >>4123513 There's one attribute that matters: it's more practical. Or do you think it's just a coincidence that most scientists and engineers even in the US use the metric system all the time?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 11:47:49 2011 No.4123529 File: 38 KB, 650x494, 1284119130959.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] God bless Murrica

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 11:49:05 2011 No.4123542 >>4123471 Non-standard units are common in science, ever use slugs?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 11:49:14 2011 No.4123549 File: 92 KB, 400x400, 0327_metric.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Dec 10 11:52:29 2011 No.4123565

>>4123520
typical niave realist.
You were enculturated to find metric more coherent and so you do, no system is inherently more coherent. you have been taught to value regular increments over other system but ultimatly those increments are just as arbitrary.

Anonymous Sat Dec 10 11:52:29 2011 No.4123569

>>4123464
I'm saying that most people who are very vocally anti imperial units usually use the argument that imperial units are arbitrarily defined, yet so are the units in the metric system
>>4123481
They've redefined everything since the speed of light was quantified. They could have easily fixed this then, but chose to leave it as this needlessly complex number.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 11:53:37 2011 No.4123572 I have studied in Europe and SouthAmerica and always used metric system. suck it, imperialfags

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 11:53:37 2011 No.4123574 >>4123565 Yeah, it's not more coherent to scale with base 10 when using a decimal number system, no! GOD BLESS AMERICA, AND NO PLACE ELSE!

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 11:54:46 2011 No.4123576 >>4123569 > They could have easily fixed this then, but chose to leave it as this needlessly complex number. Are you fucking retarded? Just think about what you have said and kill yourself once you figured out what kind of retard you are.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 11:55:53 2011 No.4123580 >>4123529 Why can't you use kilofeet or centimiles?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 11:56:01 2011 No.4123587 >>4123580 Because then the terrorists win.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 11:56:53 2011 No.4123582 >>4123576 Elaborate, please.

Anonymous Sat Dec 10 11:57:01 2011 No.4123590

>>4123569
>They've redefined everything since the speed of light was quantified. They could have easily fixed this then, but chose to leave it as this needlessly complex number.
Do you know any situation where they have had problems because they haven't redefined the metre? Scientists have become accustomed to use the metre so why not use it?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 11:57:10 2011 No.4123591 >>4123582 >HURR WHY DIDN'T THEY JUST DEFINE THE INCH AS 1 CENTIMETRE INSTEAD OF 2.54 WHEN THEY REDEFINED IT DURRRRRR If you can answer this very simple question, you'll understand why what you said is retarded.

Anonymous Sat Dec 10 11:58:10 2011 No.4123596

>>4123574
Its not "inherently" more coherent. You make the assumption that the coherency is inately regular. had you been raised without thinking the coherency=regular increments. you would find irregular increments to be more coherent. its just the tacit culture that you have. ultimatly they aren't any different. they are just numbers. its like your bitching because something you want to buy doesn't cost 10 euros but rather costs 12 euros or 8 euros. you've been learned into thinking that base 10 is more coherent

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 11:58:10 2011 No.4123599 File: 57 KB, 550x550, 1213320550239.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 11:59:17 2011 No.4123600 >>4123596 >Its not "inherently" more coherent to use the same base for units and numbers Are you really that retarded, or are you trying to troll me?

Anonymous Sat Dec 10 11:59:17 2011 No.4123603

>>4123591
Because the infastructure is already set up for the current system of measurements? Because people are already used to using measurements the way they currently are? Hmm, sounds like exactly the reason that America still uses the imperial system.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 12:00:25 2011 No.4123609 >>4123590 Americans have become accustomed to the imperial system so why not just use it?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 12:00:25 2011 No.4123610 >>4123603 Then why do scientists in US use the metric system?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 12:03:50 2011 No.4123618 >>4123610 If American scientists are already using the metric system, and we can agree that there is no reason to change infrastructure and confuse the average citizen, then what is the problem everyone has with the imperial system?

Anonymous Sat Dec 10 12:04:57 2011 No.4123625

>>4123600
So what makes it inherently coherent? what is incoherent about the numbers 12,3,5280? what makes these numbers less superior than 10,10,10. They are numbers, regularity is inconsequential. Coherency is in the mind of the viewer and your essentially bitching about imperial measurment being to hard while calling it unintellegent. Coherency is not inate and you throw personal attacks because you haven't anything to say that refutes that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 12:05:57 2011 No.4123626 >>4123609 Because metric system is A LOT easier to use when you become accustomed to it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 12:07:14 2011 No.4123634 >>4123626 what is easy?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 12:09:29 2011 No.4123640 >>4123634 Well it's easier to convert kilometres to metres than for example miles to feets and so on.

Anonymous Sat Dec 10 12:09:29 2011 No.4123641

>>4123626
But think about how vast of an undertaking it would be to change an entire country's system. Every road sign would need to be changed, grocery stores need to buy new scales, gas stations would need to modify their meters, etc.

I guess it might temporarily create jobs, though.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 12:09:29 2011 No.4123643 >>4123565 did you even see this post? >>4123529 Tell me, what's more coherent, 12-3-1760, or 10-10-10-10?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 12:10:38 2011 No.4123646 >>4123640 Already debunked. See: >>4123580

Anonymous Sat Dec 10 12:10:38 2011 No.4123648

>>4123603
Ah, so you are fucking retarded, good to know. It's because if the metre is a certain lenght today and a different length tomorrow nobody will be able to know which of the two is being used in a document.

But you are obviously the kind of person who never had to look for data in scientific literature, so colour me surprised when you don't know shit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 12:11:45 2011 No.4123650 >>4123640 it's also easier to use a duodecimal system. so why are you using decimal?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 12:11:45 2011 No.4123651 >>4123625 Stom trying to climb on fucking mirrors, your system of units is incoherent shit, and you are a brainless moron. Deal with it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 12:12:53 2011 No.4123654 >>4123646 How many use them like that in the USA?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 12:14:09 2011 No.4123659 >>4123650 >it's also easier to use a duodecimal system. no it's not >so why are you using decimal? it's easier to use

Anonymous Sat Dec 10 12:14:09 2011 No.4123661

>>4123648
Then don't call the new length "meter." I'm just trying to point out that in some ways, the metric system is just as arbitrary as the imperial system.

And they easily could have redefined it and left its name as a meter. Just teach everyone that everything published prior to year XXXX uses one definition for a meter, and everything after XXXX uses the new, more logical definition.

Anonymous Sat Dec 10 12:15:18 2011 No.4123662

>>4123625
I sure hope you are trolling.
Ask any american "How many inches to a mile?", and they will walk away dumbfounded.
Ask any european "How many centimetres to a kilometre?", and after 10 seconds of thinking they will say: 100,000.
That's because metric is inherently coherent in base 10. 100 centimetres to a metre, and 1000 metres to a kilometre, and guess what, 100 and 1000 is piss easy to multiply.
That's sure more coherent than stupid imperial.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 12:15:18 2011 No.4123664 Enjoy unit conversion without just shifting the decimal point or increasing/decreasing an exponent. And what's with those stupid fractions of inches.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 12:16:18 2011 No.4123666 >>4123596 It is inherently more consistent though. Imperial switches bases, metric uses the same base.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 12:16:18 2011 No.4123667 >>4123651 You don't understand your own point of view well enough to put forth a reasonable argument. Maybe you should find another hobby. Politics may suit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 12:16:25 2011 No.4123671 >>4123661 PROTIP: we already have a system of units where physical constants are defined to be easy to remember. It's called either Lorentz-Heaviside or Gaussian natural units. Not that you could have heard of it in grade school.

Anonymous Sat Dec 10 12:16:25 2011 No.4123672

>>4123346
When you have to design a product, it will be in inches because EVYERTHING in America is in imperial. Imperial tooling is cheaper and more common than metric tooling. If you hand a machinist the plans for a flange that has a 25mm through hole and 12mm bolt holes he'll tell you to fuck off and to change it to 1" and 1/2" because his machine shop isn't tooled up for metric.

For America to start using metric we have to get the entire industry to convert to metric first imo. We lost this chance with WW2 and I don't think we'll have a chance again until for some reason we have build our industry anew.

Anonymous Sat Dec 10 12:17:25 2011 No.4123673

>>4123654
None. I'm just pointing out that the difference isn't 3-12-1760 vs 10-10-10. It's that the imperial system has multiple measurements for length, and which one you use depends on context, and the metric system only has one that you stick prefixes on when context demands longer/smaller units.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 12:17:25 2011 No.4123679 >>4123659 >no it's not so tell me. why?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 12:18:33 2011 No.4123683 >>4123662 >>4123662 >>4123662 >>4123662 >>4123662 >>4123662 >>4123662

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 12:18:33 2011 No.4123688 >>4123671 You're thinking of planck units. Why don't we use them instead of metric? It's clearly more logical and intuitive.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 12:18:33 2011 No.4123689 >>4123513 we use base 10 because we have ten fingers.Even chimps can do it Captcha: aderder that's you

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 12:20:42 2011 No.4123695 Imperial units are based off of human proportions. It makes more sense to use IU for distance measurements. Metric is better for scientific calculations and such. This pissing contest is retarded.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 12:20:49 2011 No.4123696 >>4123689 >almost 2012 >counting with fingers >laughingmathphd.jpg

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 12:21:57 2011 No.4123700 >>4123688 Nobody actually uses Planck units, everyone uses either LH or G, but thinks they are using Planck units. And we don't use them in day-to-day crap because they lack the capacity to do dimensional analysis.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 12:24:22 2011 No.4123710 >>4123346 They make us do metric in everything. Wrap your mind around that.

Anonymous Sat Dec 10 12:25:22 2011 No.4123713

>>4123695
> It makes more sense to use IU for distance measurements.
lol how old are you?
Are you really measuring things with your foot and compare lengths to the the length of your back yard?
Seriously, I don't understand this argument, which always comes up in discussions like this.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 12:27:37 2011 No.4123721 >>4123700 Wrong. Gaussian is cgs. I'll admit I've never used LH units so I can't comment on that, however.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 12:31:01 2011 No.4123725 >>4123721 And I know cgs sets a few constants to 1 but Planck sets more.

Anonymous Sat Dec 10 12:33:17 2011 No.4123732

We should define the official unit of measurement to be <span class="math">\frac{1}{10,000,000}[/spoiler] of the arclength from the North Pole to the equator at sea level, then define the speed of light from that, then redefine the official unit of measurement based off of that speed of light.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 12:33:17 2011 No.4123735 Americunts are too proud to change anything, that's why they are inefficient in everything and why their economy is about to be surpassed by China.

Anonymous Sat Dec 10 12:45:45 2011 No.4123756

>>4123721
Wrong, Gaussian simply means that e0 = 1/4pi, cgs-Gauss is the version of cgs which uses that definition, unlike cgs-LH which uses e0 = 1, which defines a system of units to be LH.

Learn some metrology before you claim your betters are wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 12:57:15 2011 No.4123798 File: 156 KB, 400x501, 12143786.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 12:59:21 2011 No.4123804 >>4123756 I've never heard of non cgs Gaussian units, but I'll take your word for it. And anyway it seems that we've moved past the original discussion/argument so sage for this thread having been derailed.

>>	GL !Bgpe2HycPk Sat Dec 10 12:59:30 2011 No.4123809 >>4123798 reddit sucks

Anonymous Sat Dec 10 13:02:45 2011 No.4123817

Say I have something that's 2.6 kilometers in length.

I need to convert that into milimeters, because it's going to be an essential part of an underwater transit system, and I can't afford any error. Easy. That's two scales of 1,000. Two kilometers into milimeters is 2.6x1,000x1,000. I might as well do that in my head, that's 2.6 million.

Alright. A comparative measurement of 2.6 kilometers is 1.612., and I need to convert that into inches. Wait... Fuck... That's uh... 102136.32 inches. What the shit?

Alright. Measuring people. Some guy just walked into a clothing store (A more upper class clothing store for suits, but not classy enough for them to do full body measurements), and is looking to get fitted. The store clerk notices that the man is about 5'8-5'10, and leads him over to the appropriately sized section.

Meanwhile, in a pure metric system, the clerk would have had to estimate that the man was ~1.8 meters high. Shit.

Metric = scientific
Imperial = daily life

kthnx

Anonymous Sat Dec 10 13:02:45 2011 No.4123823

>>4123804
>I've never heard of non cgs Gaussian units

It's because most people who use them either call them natural units without specifying if they are G or LH, or incorrectly call them Planck units.

If they are using eV to measure everything, they are either using G or LH, and the only way to find out is by seeing how they write the electron charge. <span class="math">e^2 = 4 \pi \alpha[/spoiler] is LH, <span class="math">e^2 = \alpha[/spoiler] is G.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 13:03:54 2011 No.4123826 WHAT IS "TWIP"

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 13:05:10 2011 No.4123836 >>4123817 Statement immediately before kilo->military conversion should say "Two point six" measurement of kilometers into miles*

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 13:19:45 2011 No.4123891 >>4123688 Probably because there are 61873568800000000000000000000000000 of them to the metre (6.18735688 * 10^34).

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 13:49:13 2011 No.4123955 >>4123817 He can estimate the same size in feet/inches but not in meters? Are you retarded? How do you think people in metric countries buy clothes?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 13:52:37 2011 No.4123960 >yfw the Imperial system was developed by British people

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 14:29:54 2011 No.4124089 >developed by British people 1 mile = 8 furlongs 1 furlong = 10 chains 1 chain = 22 yards 1 yard = 3 feet 1 foot = 12 inches 1 inch = 1000 thou 1 thou = 25.4 µm sigh

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 16:03:05 2011 No.4124494 >>4123625 that you can convert by moving the decimal point a place left/right and don't have to go through multiplication.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 16:10:54 2011 No.4124521 USE TEH "UNIT ANALYSIS"!~!!!!ONE!!11!!

>>	Cunt !rdCUNTjJsk Sat Dec 10 16:16:33 2011 No.4124546 >revisit thread >no mention of bushels or pecks I am disappoints

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 16:21:05 2011 No.4124566 Base-twelve > base-ten

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 10 16:26:46 2011 No.4124582 File: 80 KB, 788x788, george.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4124566 >7DB >not using hexadecimal

Anonymous Sat Dec 10 18:12:18 2011 No.4125101

>>4123817
>in a pure metric system, the clerk would have had to estimate that the man was ~1.8 meters high. Shit.

I don't see the problem here. I'm never more than one or two centimeters off when judging someone's height using the metric system unless that person is a lot taller or shorter than me, in which case it's three or four at most.

Judging a persons height only down to decimeter precision is such a trivial task that you could expect a half-blind retard to do it with a 99% success rate.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math