The three countries that don't use the metric system

[sdifox]

33% of the countries that do not use the standard system are world leaders.

If the rest of the world would convert to the standard system, we would all be better off.

Except all the world leading parts are already metric :biggrin:

Science and Technology is all metric, even in US of A.

 

[Texashiker]

Except all the world leading parts are already metric :biggrin:

Out of the countries that use metric, how many are world leaders? 5%,,, maybe 10%?

33% of the countries that use standard are world leaders.

I think its time for the rest of the world to convert to standard.

 

[sdifox]

Out of the countries that use metric, how many are world leaders? 5%,,, maybe 10%?

33% of the countries that use standard are world leaders.

I think its time for the rest of the world to convert to standard.

You misunderstood. I said within the USA, the 33% you are referring to, Science and Technology sector already deal in Metric.

 

[gorcorps]

You misunderstood. I said within the USA, the 33% you are referring to, Science and Technology sector already deal in Metric.

Not completely true. Just like anything else, the end use and customer can dictate how you report things. I have contacts of suppliers of automotive stuff, and when reported to Ford and GM they always use imperial. When reporting to Honda and Toyota they use metric.

A lot of my friends in engineering positions also are dealing with english units in their job. It's actually quite surprising how little metric is used in practice when school heavily favors using metric.

 

[sdifox]

Not completely true. Just like anything else, the end use and customer can dictate how you report things. I have contacts of suppliers of automotive stuff, and when reported to Ford and GM they always use imperial. When reporting to Honda and Toyota they use metric.

A lot of my friends in engineering positions also are dealing with english units in their job. It's actually quite surprising how little metric is used in practice when school heavily favors using metric.

Obviously automotive and construction are still imperial. Changing those would be monumental.

 

[gorcorps]

Obviously automotive and construction are still imperial. Changing those would be monumental.

Right, I was just making a point that lumping all science & tech together in one overarching group and saying they all use metric is silly. It covers a lot of ground, and while we usually are TAUGHT to use metric it's not as common as I was led to believe here in the states.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

1 fl. oz water = 1 av oz water
1 pint water = 1 lb water

Huh?

1 pint of water is ~568 ml
1 lb of water is ~454 ml

 

[PlasmaBomb]

^ Because we all know kg is mass and gram is mass.

Do I follow your PhD in physics correctly?

FFY.

The newton would be weight, but everyone ignores it since they presume that you are talking about weight in a standard 1g environment...

 

[JTsyo]

I find it hard to understand how anyone, at any point in history, at any time in their lives, could find it better to use the Imperial system rather than the metric system. The reason we count in base 10 is because we have 10 fingers. So why not have a measurement system that measures increments in powers of 10? We do not count in base 12, 3, 1760, 20, 8, 16, and 14 all at once. In case you were wondering:

12 inches in a foot
3 feet in a yard
1760 yards in a mile
20 fl. ounce in a pint
8 pints to a gallon
16 ounces to a pound
14 pounds to a stone

With the metric system, it all makes sense, and the whole thing is built on a set of mostly consistent rules: the kilo- prefix means a thousand, mega- means a million, milli- means a thousandth, micro- means a millionth, etc. Instantly you have a measuring system that is consistent, scalable to very large or very small quantities, and most important, easily remembered.

Also, note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication

All the countries in the list had units of measurement before they switched to the Metric system. China alone had a population of ~480 million (according to Wolfram Alpha) in 1925 when they changed. And as you have noted, much of the scientific community (and including people like engineers and other science-related trades and professions) already use the metric system.


Laughable. Instead of catching the bus I could walk the 3 or 4 hours from my house to the university where I study. Does it means I should do it, just because it's possible?


Because that is so much easier than "add 1"

It's because the imperial system came from practical means that the people of that age had use for. Metric only came around 1790s.

 

[MotionMan]

1000 is not hard to measure accurately. Also, 10 wouldn't restrict us from using 10.1 or 10.23 in our measurements of temperature. The base unit has nothing to do with the accuracy of measurement.

Carbon is far more abundant in life than fresh water is. In fact, carbon is the basis of all life. Why not use it instead?

When the Celsius scale was created, humans were not all living at sea level. Even then, sea level is arbitrary. Why should where people live determine the basis of a scale? That is being arbitrary.

To make perfect sense doesn't mean that something isn't arbitrary. Just because you can see why someone did something doesn't change the fact that it is arbitrary. What system did they use to make those choices? Did they go around an count the population to make sure that most people were living at sea level?

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
--Inigo Montoya

ar·bi·trar·y/ˈärbiˌtrerē/Adjective
1. Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

Many reasons have been pointed out for the choices made regarding Celsius. Since there are reasons, the choices were, by definition, not arbitrary. For example, the fact that it makes sense (a reason), makes it not arbitrary.

MotionMan

 

[M0RPH]

It's because we're too stupid.

fixed

 

[Cogman]

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
--Inigo Montoya



Many reasons have been pointed out for the choices made regarding Celsius. Since there are reasons, the choices were, by definition, not arbitrary. For example, the fact that it makes sense (a reason), makes it not arbitrary.

MotionMan

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arbitrary

subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision

All the choices where left up to the one individual, Anders Celsius. The fact that there were many other options and routes he could have taken make the formation of his choices arbitrary.

I've already presented you with several routes that could have been taken in the formation of a temperature scale. You've really not given any good reason why those routes should not have been taken. Hell, you can't even admit to yourself that making the two points go from 0 to 100 rather than 0 to 1000 was an arbitrary decision.

All base units are arbitrary in their definition. There was 1,000,000 different choices that they could have used that would have significantly changed the size and starting points of their measurements.

Back to my original point, why is Celsius so much better than Fahrenheit? It is better simply because a comity got together and decided that it was. No other reason.

 

[MotionMan]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arbitrary

subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision

All the choices where left up to the one individual, Anders Celsius. The fact that there were many other options and routes he could have taken make the formation of his choices arbitrary.

No. You are assuming they were arbitrary. However, I have presented you with plenty of reasons why the choices he made made the most sense between the possible choices (Why would he choose one that makes less sense?). You just disagree with the premiss the "it makes the most sense" is a valid reason.

I've already presented you with several routes that could have been taken in the formation of a temperature scale. You've really not given any good reason why those routes should not have been taken. Hell, you can't even admit to yourself that making the two points go from 0 to 100 rather than 0 to 1000 was an arbitrary decision.

In the 1700's the 100 scale of measurement was easier to use/learn/explain as compared to 10 and 1000. You disagree with that reason, but it is still a reason.

All base units are arbitrary in their definition. There was 1,000,000 different choices that they could have used that would have significantly changed the size and starting points of their measurements.

And, of those 1,000,000 choices, Celsius chose the ones that seems to make the most sense (i.e. not arbitrary).

Back to my original point, why is Celsius so much better than Fahrenheit? It is better simply because a comity got together and decided that it was. No other reason.

It makes more sense that water freezes at 0 and boils at 100 versus 32 and 212. That alone is enough for me. Unfortunately, despite that, I do not know Celsius.

BTW, if we want to throw common sense out of the equation, then you win. Congratulations.

MotionMan

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Honestly, it doesn't. It is arbitrary. Provide me with some good solid logic for using the boiling point of water to create a scale.

To be fair, the Celsius scale doesn't use the boiling point of water as a point of reference... it uses the triple point of water and absolute zero, both of which are constant to the best of our current knowledge. Granted it does assign -273.15 C to absolute zero rather than some other number... and granted that is pretty much arbitrarily carried over from earlier scales (centigrade).

1000 is not hard to measure accurately. Also, 10 wouldn't restrict us from using 10.1 or 10.23 in our measurements of temperature. The base unit has nothing to do with the accuracy of measurement.

Having Celsius as a 0-1000 scale wouldn't give any more accuracy than a 0-100 scale for day to day measurements - remember when these scales were defined there were no digital readouts - you would have been using an analogue thermometer -

So is the temperature 267 or 268 degrees? Oh noes, my instrument is only calibrated in steps of 10... which would be exactly the same as 1 degree steps in the old scale...

Carbon is far more abundant in life than fresh water is. In fact, carbon is the basis of all life. Why not use it instead?

Because we generally don't find lumps of pure carbon sitting around.

When the Celsius scale was created, humans were not all living at sea level. Even then, sea level is arbitrary. Why should where people live determine the basis of a scale? That is being arbitrary.

It isn't based on sealevel... see the first point.

To make perfect sense doesn't mean that something isn't arbitrary. Just because you can see why someone did something doesn't change the fact that it is arbitrary. What system did they use to make those choices? Did they go around an count the population to make sure that most people were living at sea level?

The scale is based on fixed points... which should be the same anywhere in the universe, thus the only thing arbitrary is the division of the scale between those two points.

 

[foghorn67]

Dont' care. Domestic cars are built with metric fasteners now. Most Craftsmen tool sets come with Metric sockets, open end wrenches. Moot point.
We like MPH, and I heard English guys still referring to speed in MPH.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Technically water freezes at -0.1'C but yeah I get your point.

Lulz... Pedantry fail.

You are out by an order of magnitude. Which in scientific terms is pretty epic fail.

 

[Cogman]

It makes more sense that water freezes at 0 and boils at 100 versus 32 and 212. That alone is enough for me. Unfortunately, despite that, I do not know Celsius.

BTW, if we want to throw common sense out of the equation, then you win. Congratulations.

MotionMan

Water wasn't the basis for the Fahrenheit scale. (well, initially at least, the boiling point was later used).

The brine being used makes much more sense than people give it credit for. The brine is self stabilizing. Freezing water, on the other hand, is harder to measure making the scale suffer from accuracy issues.

Why didn't the Celsius scale use a liquid the stabilizes at some point instead of one that is hard to measure.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

sdifox's avatar will teach us the error of our ways... for truly the only scale that matters is bulk, and alternator sized.

ATOT forever!

 

[Cogman]

The scale is based on fixed points... which should be the same anywhere in the universe, thus the only thing arbitrary is the division of the scale between those two points.

The boiling point of water is not a fixed point. It varies with pressure. That, and the as you pointed out the numbers assigned to those points was also arbitrary.

As for the 1000s thing, I wasn't saying it gives more accuracy, I was saying accuracy is independent of how big the numbers are.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

The boiling point of water is not a fixed point. It varies with pressure. That, and the as you pointed out the numbers assigned to those points was also arbitrary.

As for the 1000s thing, I wasn't saying it gives more accuracy, I was saying accuracy is independent of how big the numbers are.

I also pointed out that the scale isn't based on the boiling point of water... it just happens to come out conveniently at 100C

and if accuracy is independent of the numbers why have more than necessary...

 

[fatpat268]

Huh?

1 pint of water is ~568 ml
1 lb of water is ~454 ml

Yea, I might be off that 1 pint = 1 pound, but it's more a rule of thumb than an exact measurement.

However, if we're talking US Pints (16 fl. oz), then 1 pint is ~473 ml which would translate to 1.04 lbs.

 

[Macamus Prime]

America has big balls. You all should love our big balls.

 

[bfdd]

It really depends on what you do here in the States. I used to have to carry some metric tooling and was going back and forth quite a bit between MM and 1/1000ths of an inch

 

[Broheim]

The boiling point of water is not a fixed point. It varies with pressure. That, and the as you pointed out the numbers assigned to those points was also arbitrary.

one atmosphere isn't as arbitrarily defined as you might think, sealevel is as close as we come to a constant in height around the world (well at the time it was defined anyway), thereby making it the logical choice.

 

[dainthomas]

Huh?

1 pint of water is ~568 ml
1 lb of water is ~454 ml

So when I go to Europe, instead of ordering a pint of lager I have to order a 568ml of lager?

That alone should make imperial volume measurements vastly superior.