Metric System vs. Standard System

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential for the United States to adopt the metric system, contrasting it with the current standard (Imperial) system. Participants explore the implications of such a transition, including educational approaches, practical challenges, and cultural resistance to change.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express hope for a transition to the metric system, citing the illogical nature of the current system.
  • Others argue that resistance to change is primarily due to familiarity with the Imperial system.
  • A few participants suggest that teaching the metric system in schools could lead to greater acceptance among future generations.
  • Concerns are raised about the costs and logistical challenges of converting to the metric system, including retooling manufacturing and changing road signs.
  • Some participants note that while they can navigate both systems, the American system can be cumbersome and difficult to convert.
  • There are mentions of specific instances where the metric system is already partially used in the US, such as in the sale of beverages.
  • One participant proposes that a standardization of units would minimize confusion and improve efficiency.
  • Contrasting opinions emerge regarding the practicality of the metric system, with some advocating for alternative base systems altogether.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally do not reach a consensus on the desirability or feasibility of switching to the metric system, with multiple competing views and ongoing debate about the implications of such a change.

Contextual Notes

Participants express various assumptions about the ease of conversion and the public's ability to adapt to new systems, highlighting the complexity of cultural and practical factors involved in such a transition.

  • #31
Do you know what they call a Quarter Pounder in France?

:smile:

The Rev
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
I agree with the green people here. I personally see no need to change the current US system, and I do not see it changing anytime soon.
 
  • #33
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 ... :-p

Mess with peoples heads and not get anything done by proposing base infinity. :smile: :smile: :biggrin:
 
  • #34
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 ... :-p

Heh, yeah. I think changing the base of our numbering system goes into that huge category of things that sound smart and cool to us nerds, but makes no practical sense whatsoever. Sort of like switching everyone to "natural" units.
 
  • #35
SpaceTiger said:
Sort of like switching everyone to "natural" units.
You mean like feet, inches, and yards?
 
  • #36
SpaceTiger said:
Heh, yeah. I think changing the base of our numbering system goes into that huge category of things that sound smart and cool to us nerds, but makes no practical sense whatsoever. Sort of like switching everyone to "natural" units.
wow someone finaly said practical, that's what i was thinking all along, might sound good to us but no one suggested an apraoch that would be most practical to the general public.
and 1 country changing is less expensive and less work then over 100 countries to change... my 2 cents
 
  • #37
ShawnD said:
You mean like feet, inches, and yards?

I mean the ones based on the various Planck scales. Here's a sample website:

http://superstringtheory.com/unitsa.html
 
Last edited:
  • #38
" 'E could 'a drawed me off a pint ", grumbled the old man as he settled down behind a glass. " A 'alf litre ain't enough. It don't satisfy. And a 'ole litre's too much. It starts my bladder running. Let alone the price."

And that is all I have to say on the matter. ;-p
 
  • #39
SpaceTiger said:
I mean the ones based on the various Planck scales. Here's a sample website:

http://superstringtheory.com/unitsa.html

That is probably the stupidest thing I've ever seen. No foreseeable gain from doing it.
 
  • #40
The Rev said:
Do you know what they call a Quarter Pounder in France?

Yeah, a Royal Cheese.

http://www.mcdonalds.fr
 
  • #41
brewnog said:
Yeah, a Royal Cheese.

http://www.mcdonalds.fr
I think you missed the joke. It's a quote from Pulp Fiction.
 
  • #42
ShawnD said:
I think you missed the joke. It's a quote from Pulp Fiction.

Nah, I got it :smile: , I just couldn't remember what it was called. Curiosity got the better of me...
 
  • #43
I started getting used to imperial units by playing a British wargame (warhammer). The conversion between inches and cm's isn't hard, but it's easier when it comes natural, which takes practice.

What really disturbes me is that certain units depend on what they are used for. I mean, a stone is a different wheight depending on whether it is meat or liquid you are measuring? :confused: Talk about weird...
 
  • #44
Dimitri Terryn said:
What really disturbes me is that certain units depend on what they are used for. I mean, a stone is a different wheight depending on whether it is meat or liquid you are measuring? :confused: Talk about weird...

Avoirdupois ounces (~28g) are for most things, but Troy ounces (~31g) are for gems. A gallon in the UK is 4.54609L. A gallon of dry stuff in the US is 4.404884L. A gallon of wet stuff in the US is 3.785412L. How does anybody keep track of this stuff?
 
  • #45
In the US, 16 ounces equals one pound, if it is a solid (weight), but 16 ounces equals 1 pint if it is a liquid (volume), but it would not weigh a pound. So ounces can be either.
 
  • #46
I think we should use BCD.
 
  • #47
Evo said:
In the US, 16 ounces equals one pound, if it is a solid (weight), but 16 ounces equals 1 pint if it is a liquid (volume), but it would not weigh a pound. So ounces can be either.
Almost. A pint of water weights about .96 pounds. It's probably as close a relationship as you can get, since the units of measure for liquid volume and weight were developed separately.

Being a base 10 system makes the metric system easier to use, but the biggest advantage is correlation between different units of measure. It's easy to convert cubic centimeters to milliliters to liters, volume to mass, etc.

Ivan Seeking said:
I think we should use BCD.
Only for digital. For mechanical and analog devices, Grey Code works much better.
 

Similar threads

High School Prove that metric tensor is covariant constant
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
What Are the Few Worldwide Standards We All Agree On?
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
Undergrad How do non-diagonal indices of a metric allow for local flatness?
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
When will the US officially adopt the metric system?
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
7K
Graduate Kerr Metric: Removing Singularity via Coordinate Transformation
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Undergrad Embedding Diagram of Weyl Metric in ##R^3##
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
Undergrad Do existing EFE solutions support Closed Timelike Curves?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
Undergrad Spacetime coordinate smoothness requirement
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Where Do Systems Belong Among the Sciences?
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
Undergrad Calculating Spacetime Around Multiple Objects
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K