Same thing, ain't it?Imperial? And here I thought it was called 'Merican.
False. 12" = 1'0"3"=1'0". What the hell is that?
Scales, sir. Architectural drawing scales, etc.False. 12" = 1'0"
Seriously the continual usage of imperial units is beyond my comprehension. All the sane parts of the world already use metric anyway... This absurd imperialism must come to swift and permanent end.You must mean 3'-12". Hyphen, not equal. (That would actually be 4', so.. Yeah)
Seriously the continual usage of imperial units is beyond my comprehension. Science and engineering already use metric anyway... This absurd imperialism must come to swift and permanent end.
It is. Also, your mama.Scales, sir. Architectural drawing scales, etc.
Unless this is sarcasm. I can never tell.
How is that two diffrent things?One of them is a lower abundance of repeating decimals for simpler fractions; another is the high divisibility of 12.
So technically a 13 base radial system? May be a bitch as far as the 13 base goes, but I'd say it's pretty neat whenever you're using anything involving sine and his little brothers. Might not be so bad, reallyOr if we want to be utter trolls we could invent a base thirteen system that works on multiples of Pi
This may very well be true. However, all these methods are better then Imperial measurements based solely on consistency. The Imperial Measurement system like the English language was made way more complected then it need to be. primarily because it was made over time for every purpose as it arises, The metric system simplified everything by making one method that fits all measurement types.Ultimately its all relative, someone had to say it guys
However we should use a base 12 number system instead of 10: "Duodecimal (or dozenal) is a counting system based on the number 12, and it has some advantages over the base-10 decimal method of counting. One of them is a lower abundance of repeating decimals for simpler fractions; another is the high divisibility of 12. Larger numbers would also take up less space, and duodecimal is easier to convert into binary, octal, and hexadecimal should the need arise. The benefits of decimal are only that we have ten fingers and its widespread use - two benefits that would be rendered moot only with a bit of effort and some genetic engineering." Damn Fibonacci, he hath doomed us all.
Wait, we forgot Planck units too.Bah, you people aren't even scratching the surface of needlessly complicated!
How about a system of measure whose base length unit is equal to the same number of hydrogen ions laid end to end as there are attoseconds since the Big Bang, and whose whose base unit of weight (mass is for chumps who aren't from Earth) is equal to the weight of all the Astatine atoms currently in the crust of the earth at an altitude equal to their number?
Reverse engineer that!
-Duxwing
A counterargument for the System International Units:An argument for imperial:
- powers of 2 vs. powers of 10 (well, inverse powers...)
- roof pitch is incredibly easy to represent without ever needing trigonometric functions
- the blueprint scale I am familiar with is 3/16" = 1'0
- magic tricks
- building construction is strongly based around the 8'0 mark, because it is a multiple of 6", 12", 16", 19.2", 24"...... and happens to be the size of a sheet of plywood.
Look at it this way: there are millions of sensors (who build your ideas) who prefer it. Why on earth would you deny them??
I think that's all pretty accurately defined. If you think that's super random,this is the definition of a second :Bah, you people aren't even scratching the surface of needlessly complicated!
How about a system of measure whose base length unit is equal to the same number of hydrogen ions laid end to end as there are attoseconds since the Big Bang, and whose whose base unit of weight (mass is for chumps who aren't from Earth) is equal to the weight of all the Astatine atoms currently in the crust of the earth at an altitude equal to their number?
Reverse engineer that!
-Duxwing
this is one meter :the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.
The true definition doesn't matter. What matters is that it's universal, easy to use and preferably well-defined. Unlike gallons, which seem to differ in every other country by a little bit. Or feet, which aren't actually as long as your foot, cause everyone's foot is diffrent.The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.
Nope, my sensors work in metric. They seem to be building just fine.Look at it this way: there are millions of sensors (who build your ideas) who prefer it. Why on earth would you deny them??
Look at it this way: there are millions of sensors (who build your ideas) who prefer it. Why on earth would you deny them??
A counterargument for the System International Units:
- Powers of 10 are easier than powers of 2: just move the decimal point. 10^8 is 10 with 8-1 zeroes tacked on, or 100,000,000 ; 2^8 is 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256. Which calculation is faster?
- Interesting. Could you tell me more?
- You can become familiar with a different blueprint scale, perhaps 1cm = 1m, surprisingly quickly.
- Interesting. Could you tell me more?
- Just add another foot and a few inches and all rooms will have 3m ceilings. While three is prime, the factors of 300cm are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 25, 30, 50, 60, 75, 100, 150, and 300. And consider that the size of a sheet of plywood directly depends upon construction needs, not the other way around.
Retraining said Sensors on the metric system would not be denying them. Yes, there would be grumbling about having to learn a new system all over again, but think of the bigger picture. Millions of other Sensors elsewhere in the world switched from their traditional system of measure to S.I. somewhere in the 19th Century, yet buildings rise to foreign skies. And millions more iNtuitives, who invent what said Sensors build, can't readily share their ideas with other iNtuitives in the United States and make manifest their ideas therein because of a simple difference in measurement system. The temporary annoyance, frustration, and nostalgia of United States Sensors, while real and something that I'd rather avoid, pales in comparison to the loss of opportunities for foreign interaction that will continue to occur until this system changes.
And also, remember that all "Imperial" units are defined in terms of metric ones, so the metric system is easier to implement than you'd think. Building plans would simply be redrawn with the appropriate conversions, and new buildings would be built according to metric standards (e.g., 3m ceilings, 1m wide doors, 25cm floor tiles).
-Duxwing
There are reasons for the Imperial system. Us Brits made it. But it was based on an older system, that evolved over millennia. They are useful, because they divide into many easy fractions that make calculations much, much easier, unless you are doing it all with a calculator. But if you are, then you're rounding off after 8 decimal places, or more, which means you are carrying an error, an errors multiply, which means that you'll multiply your errors until they are so large, they'll destroy the planet.Seriously the continual usage of imperial units is beyond my comprehension. All the sane parts of the world already use metric anyway...
Also screw celcius, we should move on to kelvin.
I think that you could do that with meters, too.Unfortunately I have to pick and choose because I only have my phone.
Re: roof pitch
Represented (in Canada) as inches of rise per foot of run. The Wiki article has an error last I checked: they say minimum slope is a 6-12, roughly 30 degrees ... which is not even wrong as 30 degrees is a 7 and I regularly assemble roofs that are 5, occasionally 4. But I digress...
We use the concept of similar triangles to scale up rafter lengths. We use the same idea to precisely triangulate a Pythagorean triangle (well at least the pros do) for the first floor, never having the need to calculate C or cot. Concrete foundations are regularly out of square and it must be corrected first thing. But I digress...
Building roofs becomes a matter of rigorous geometry and nothing more. Le simple.
Anyways, we think of a 7-12 as 7" rise per 1'0 run or 30°.
Hehehehe! Abra kadabra alaka kilometer!Re: magic tricks
The imperial measurement system immerses the metric trained individual into a whole new realm of reasoning, which provides ample opportunity for mental math. It's magic to sensors kk??
Thanks! You argued well, too.Other than that I found your post quite agreeable and generally correct. You have analyzed the topic on many levels in a short period of time and I am forced to say you are right.
I'll give you 5$ if you can make up a universal system/ method that does not require the use of any constant and is more convenient than actually simply using a constant.Anyway, we ought to reject the SI system. It requires constants for science, which means that the dimensions have not been normalised, and so are the wrong units for science, and thus for everything.
Powers of ten are easier than powers of two, and eight decimal places is an extreme degree of precision: the LHC--the place where we determine the funadmental nature of ultimate reality--only goes to six places.There are reasons for the Imperial system. Us Brits made it. But it was based on an older system, that evolved over millennia. They are useful, because they divide into many easy fractions that make calculations much, much easier, unless you are doing it all with a calculator. But if you are, then you're rounding off after 8 decimal places, or more, which means you are carrying an error, an errors multiply, which means that you'll multiply your errors until they are so large, they'll destroy the planet.
Unless you're being sarcastic.SAVE THE PLANET!
GIVE UP CALCULATORS!
Basing a system of measure on fundamental constants removes the need for a physical standard and thereby ensures eternally consistent measurement: a constant-based system is perfect for science.Anyway, we ought to reject the SI system. It requires constants for science, which means that the dimensions have not been normalised, and so are the wrong units for science, and thus for everything.
I'll give you 5$ if you can make up a universal system/ method that does not require the use of any constant and is more convenient than actually simply using a constant.
Planck units, darn it!Basing a system of measure on fundamental constants removes the need for a physical standard and thereby ensures eternally consistent measurement: a constant-based system is perfect for science.
Just use prefixes!Planck units, darn it!
Though convenience is debatable.