- #1
Physics_wiz
- 228
- 0
Anyone think the US will start using the metric system anytime soon?
dextercioby said:I can only hope,as your system of units is highly illogical.
SpaceTiger said:Heh, yeah, agreed. The only logic that's preventing a switch is the fact that we're used to it and Americans are notoriously resistant to change.
ramollari said:We need a form of standardization for the physical units worldwide. I am amazed that authors of certain physics books still keep using the non-standard American system. It is ok to put a few exercises to test the unit conversion abilities of the student, but having half, or all of exercises or worked problems with the American units is a really bad idea.
Besides I would add that the system is difficult and illogical. Take the quantity of distance, for example. In SI the meter is defined and all existing sub- or super- units in that system are by powers of 10. On the other hand in the American system there is a weird relation between inches, feet, and miles making it hard to convert :-(.
Pfft, a plan aimed at more than the next election? HA!Physics_wiz said:Ahhh my wonderful 50 year plans that never happen.
The Euro has just been introduced in many European countries. It is a little hard at first dealing with a new currency, but after a year you don't know any better.Physics_wiz said:Most people don't like change. However, I think if the metric system was taught in school to little kids, they would accept it more than they would the standard system.
I think if the metric system was taught in school to little kids
FredGarvin said:Personally, I have no problems going back and forth between the two systems. Why does everyone else?
FredGarvin said:I can imagine how expensive it would be for just my company to convert. It would never happen unless someone else paid the huge bills to do it.
Personally, I have no problems going back and forth between the two systems. Why does everyone else?
BobG said:If they at least used the same base, we could just the change our numbering system to match.
Smurf said:How hard could it be to garner enough support among the physicians and engineers for a Base 12 system (just for professionals) to at least ensure it's survival.
BobG said:The problem isn't the fact that the English system doesn't use a base 10 system. The problem is that there's no standardization between the different systems (12 inches per foot, 16 ounces per pound, etc.). If they at least used the same base, we could just the change our numbering system to match.
Get Evo to tutor you. They're her second favourite food.motai said:I still have no idea how to visualize slugs and the like...
That still has the problem of converting units. Most people know what 10^2 is, or 10^3, or 10^4. How many people know 12^2? Maybe half (you're supposed to know it). What about 12^3? Less than 1% maybe? How about 12^5? Nobody knows that.BobG said:I agree with Integral. 10 is a pretty lame number to base your numbering system on. 12 would be a fantastic base for a numbering system - it's divisible by 2, 3, 4, and 6. Base 11 wouldn't be too bad either - then we wouldn't have to constantly deal with simplifying fractions; they'd already be in their most simplified form. Base 16 is even better than base 10.
The problem isn't the fact that the English system doesn't use a base 10 system. The problem is that there's no standardization between the different systems (12 inches per foot, 16 ounces per pound, etc.). If they at least used the same base, we could just the change our numbering system to match.
If we used a base 12 system, 12 would equal 10(base 12). 12(b10)^2 would equal 100 (b12).ShawnD said:That still has the problem of converting units. Most people know what 10^2 is, or 10^3, or 10^4. How many people know 12^2? Maybe half (you're supposed to know it). What about 12^3? Less than 1% maybe? How about 12^5? Nobody knows that.
BobG said:If we used a base 12 system, 12 would equal 10(base 12). 12(b10)^2 would equal 100 (b12).
10(b10)^2 would equal 84(b12) and everyone would think base 10 would be totally unworkable as the base for a numbering system.
And what's wrong with hex. You can count up to 1,048,575 on your fingers if you modify the Chinese finger counting method to be in hex instead of decimal.
motai said:Why be content with base 10 or 16 or 8... let's have something competely insane. How about base pi, or base i, or (for the sake of things) base 0.9999999 ...
You mean like feet, inches, and yards?SpaceTiger said:Sort of like switching everyone to "natural" units.