Starship Asterisk*

But just remember, there are EXACTLY 25.4mm per inch - it is not rounded.

alter-ego wrote:But just remember, there are EXACTLY 25.4mm per inch - it is not rounded.

Unless it is a US survey inch.

Hartful wrote:

the speed of light is 186 282.397 miles per second. One mile is 1.609 kilometers, so... oh, bother! The speed of light is almost 300,000 kilometers per second!

If you were born in the US, try doing this in your head . . . 367,293,229 k = ? miles. 10 seconds later into the documentary, 253 liters = ? gallons. Although I know what a 2 liter bottle of soda looks like and could picture what 253 2-liter bottles would look like, I would have to go to a conversion calculator to know what that equals in gallons. Since 0.2642 gallons = 1 liter, I would need to multiply .2642 x 253. Since the answer is 66.84 gallons, I now have a reference as to how much it really is. If I want to know how many quarts it is, my mind can multiply 66 or 67 by 4 and get a general feeling as to how much that is, but if I want to know how many deciliters it is, I wouldn't know how to figure it out in my mind and would therefore have to use a conversion chart. Since the US does not use, nor are children taught in schools, the metric system, most of America (over 7 billion people) would have no idea how many deciliters it is. That is what doesn't make sense.

What doesn't make sense to me is why you are complaining about the use of scientific units on a science site. The US does use the metric system, in science and in other endeavors (soda bottling, as you have noted). But hey, you need help with it, so here. If you still want to convert units (to find out "how much it really is" [news flash: "it really is" 112 kms or 3 liters or whatever]), just type, for example, "how many miles is 367,293,229 k?" into Google for the answer... which may very well be in scientific notation (also taught in schools in the US).

Hartful wrote:Since the US does not use, nor are children taught in schools, the metric system, most of America (over 7 billion people) would have no idea how many deciliters it is. That is what doesn't make sense.

This is argument is reminiscent of a situation when I was a student at a US high school. While the physics teacher was introducing the class to the metric system, a girl asked: "We [the US] are the leading nation of the world. Shouldn't everybody adopt our system?"

Markus Schwarz wrote: This is argument is reminiscent of a situation when I was a student at a US high school. While the physics teacher was introducing the class to the metric system, a girl asked: "We [the US] are the leading nation of the world. Shouldn't everybody adopt our system?"

They Were All Out Of Step But Jim, by Irving Berlin
Did you see my little Jimmy marching
With the soldiers up the avenue?
There was Jimmy just as stiff as starch
Like his Daddy on the seventeenth of March
Did you notice all the lovely ladies
Casting their eyes on him?
Away he went
To live in a tent
Over in France with his regiment
Were you there, and tell me, did you notice?
They were all out of step but Jim

We are taught the metric system in school. I went to a podunk public school in a podunk city and even I learned about SI units and the metric system in various science classes.

You were taught the metric system.

The US does use the metric system, in science and in other endeavors (soda bottling, as you have noted).

Yes, I know how large a 2 liter bottle of soda is and I know that science uses it, which is the reason for this post. But, as I said, most of America doesn't use it, hence the problem.

If you still want to convert units (to find out "how much it really is" [news flash: "it really is" 112 kms or 3 liters or whatever]), just type, for example, "how many miles is 367,293,229 k?"

Wow, you really didn't read the entire post, did you? But you had the nerve to respond nonetheless?

And students in the U.S. have been routinely taught the decimal multipliers (milli, kilo, etc) for decades.

No, they haven't and that's the problem. President Carter decided that classrooms were to start teaching the metric system so soda was the first to use it. He then lost his second bid for the presidency and President Reagan didn't follow up so it was dropped. It's the reason why milk, bleach, soup, etc, are still using the US Standard. Our speed limit signs and other road signs are still in miles. If I saw a road sign for 50 km/hour, I'd have no idea how fast I could drive, and so would just about all of America. We are not a metric-using society here in America but the science community continues to use it anyway, as if to say, "we don't care if you don't understand, go and learn it."

While the physics teacher was introducing the class to the metric system, a girl asked: "We [the US] are the leading nation of the world. Shouldn't everybody adopt our system?"

Well, aren't you clever? (Now go sit down, kid)


I, and most of America, didn't take physics in high school nor were we introduced to the metric system in any other classes.

Quart: a unit of measurement for liquids, equal to approximately 1.14 litres in the UK, or 0.95 litres in the US:
A quart is so called because it is a quarter of a gallon.

The conundrum exactly.

A big, ugly number like 367,293,229 is a little difficult to grasp in km or miles. My inclination would be to convert 367 million km to about 2.5 AU. This conversion is no more difficult than miles to AU.

Yes, it's difficult to grasp a large number in km or miles but when miles are used, I don't have to continue watching the documentary, wondering how far that might be, and all space documentaries use the metric system.

Regarding liters (or litres) compared with gallons, this can be a bit awkward since 1 imperial gallon is about 1.2 US gallons. But in the case of a volume like 253 litres, one could note that 1000 litres is 1 cubic metre, and using Chris's notion of "sense of dimension", a volume of 1 yard x 1 yard x 1 foot is pretty darn close to 253 litres (actually about 254.9 litres). Or, you could say there are roughly 4 litres in a gallon (and 1 litre is about 1 quart) so it is about 65 gallons, say, in anyone's language.

Again, the conundrum exactly.

This doesn't have to be very difficult.

Read the above.


My original complaint still stands. When the science community insists on using the metric system, it gives no consideration to the billions of people in America who didn't learn it in school, don't use it and don't know it. By using it on the internet, in books, in documentaries, etc, they are not going to make Americans constantly run to use a converter or to learn it. They are basically being rude, pointing out our lack of knowledge of the metric system. I can "see" a light year in my mind but not how many km are in a meter or a mile.

Hartful wrote:When the science community insists on using the metric system, it gives no consideration to the billions of people in America who didn't learn it in school, don't use it and don't know it.

Millions (you've already been corrected on this) of Americans currently have access to APOD. Or perhaps billions of milliAmericans.

Hartful wrote:My original complaint still stands. When the science community insists on using the metric system, it gives no consideration to the [millions] of people in America who didn't learn it in school, don't use it and don't know it. By using it on the internet, in books, in documentaries, etc, they are not going to make Americans constantly run to use a converter or to learn it. They are basically being rude, pointing out our lack of knowledge of the metric system. I can "see" a light year in my mind but not how many km are in a meter or a mile.

Science is an international endeavor, so it is logical that the science community should use one system. If the metric system isn't being currently taught in American schools that is unfortunate. It should be. But to claim that scientists are being rude for using it is wrong. It's like an American traveling abroad who complains "what's wrong with these people, why don't they speak my language?"

Anyway, welcome to The Starship, Hartful. If metric units are the only things to confound you on this site, you'll being doing okay. Have a pint on me.

Hartful wrote:But, as I said, most of America doesn't use it, hence the problem.

Yup, that's a problem. But it isn't the problem of scientists. It's the problem of America.

And students in the U.S. have been routinely taught the decimal multipliers (milli, kilo, etc) for decades.

No, they haven't and that's the problem.

Perhaps you were educated in some backwoods school in the third world quadrant. In general, you are wrong. The metric system and decimal prefixes are part of the state standards for science and math nearly everywhere. Students in the U.S. are almost universally taught the metric system. Americans simply don't use this in everyday life.

We are not a metric-using society here in America but the science community continues to use it anyway, as if to say, "we don't care if you don't understand, go and learn it."

Science uses it because it is standardized, because the rest of the world uses it, and because it is vastly superior to the unit systems used in the U.S. And the response of the science community is absolutely correct: if you want to discuss science, the discussion will be conducted in SI units and their derivatives. If you don't understand them, learn them. It is your responsibility to do so if you want to be part of the discussion.

My original complaint still stands.

Your original complaint lacks merit. To be blunt, it demonstrates ignorance. And worse, it demonstrates a pride in ignorance. Maybe you're just a troll- your followup response certainly makes me think that likely. But if not, here's some advice: if you're interested in science, learn the important metric units. Because science isn't going to corrupt its way of thinking to suit your obsolete units or your refusal to educate yourself.

Canada, as often happens, is stuck in the middle. We went "metric" decades ago, and to a large extent it works fine. I feel sorry for people who still desperately cling to converting, though. Believe me, it's a lot easier to just get used to it. But as I say, we're stuck in the middle.

The USA is attached to our nether border (how did that happen?!), and since they're our largest trading partner, we end up with a lot of mixed-measurement-system products. Our building industry is an excellent example. We still buy plywood, gyproc, and other sheet goods in 4' x 8' units, though the industry took advantage of metrification (I suspect) to thin the products down. For example, a 3/4" sheet of plywood is no longer that thick, it's more like 18 mm (about 11/16"). And we still refer to "two-by-four" lumber, though they are no longer anywhere near that size. (Strangely, and confusingly, we can buy "Baltic Birch" plywood in 5' x 5' sheets.) I've spent my life primarily in the craft industry, designing and building wooden furniture. Even I, champion of SI as I am, still use inches and feet in my daily work. I also bake cakes in Fahrenheit. But I dress for the outdoors in Celsius and I drive in kilometres. Consistency is for small minds.

Products produced in Canada for home consumption can be in metric-sized containers, in round amounts like 250 ml, or 375 gm, but similar products from the USA only have to include metric sizes in their label somewhere. So we end up with 272 ml or 367 gm packages. It makes it hard to compare costs at the grocery store. Due to what the meat industry thought would be consumer resistance, for a long time they simply ignored the metric system entirely, with hamburger and pork chops selling in pounds. They got their collective wrists slapped a decade or so ago, and now it's all metric -- and nobody cares.

But in science, it's SI (not just metric) all the way. Otherwise we'd end up crashing a satellite into Mars or something like that.

Rob

rstevenson wrote:We still buy plywood, gyproc, and other sheet goods in 4' x 8' units, though the industry took advantage of metrification (I suspect) to thin the products down...

In the U.S. (and I assume Canada, but maybe not) this has nothing to do with metrification in any way. It's the difference between rough-cut and finished lumber. A rough-cut 2x4 is nominally 2 inches by 4 inches. But this goes through a planer to produce a finished stud, which is 1.5 x 3.5 inches. This applies to sheet lumber, as well.

At least, that's the historical basis of the difference. These days, I'm pretty sure that dimensional lumber is generally cut to its final size directly from the raw stock- which explains why it's often of poorer quality than back in the day. When you finish dry, rough-cut lumber, you get something that tends to be dimensionally stable and dimensionally accurate. When you exact cut green lumber and then dry it, you get stuff that shrinks and twists. Just what you find in your average lumber store these days.

Chris Peterson wrote:

rstevenson wrote:We still buy plywood, gyproc, and other sheet goods in 4' x 8' units, though the industry took advantage of metrification (I suspect) to thin the products down...

In the U.S. (and I assume Canada, but maybe not) this has nothing to do with metrification in any way. It's the difference between rough-cut and finished lumber. A rough-cut 2x4 is nominally 2 inches by 4 inches. But this goes through a planer to produce a finished stud, which is 1.5 x 3.5 inches. This applies to sheet lumber, as well.

At least, that's the historical basis of the difference. These days, I'm pretty sure that dimensional lumber is generally cut to its final size directly from the raw stock- which explains why it's often of poorer quality than back in the day. When you finish dry, rough-cut lumber, you get something that tends to be dimensionally stable and dimensionally accurate. When you exact cut green lumber and then dry it, you get stuff that shrinks and twists. Just what you find in your average lumber store these days.

My suspicians were in reference to the way plywood changed in thickness, in just a few years. I have examples to prove the change occurred, though not, of course, why it changed. The fact that the change occurred while we were moving to the metric system may have been coincidental.

As for construction lumber -- the proverbial "two-bys" -- I know why it is what it is, and have seen examples of that changing through the years in houses under renovation. (My current house has four ages of lumber in it, showing four different dimensions.) It has a lot to do with what the industry thinks the customer will put up with. Over a hundred years ago, sawyers felt obligated to deliver what the customer was paying for -- lumber that was at least 2" x 4" after sawing and planing, and after any subsequent air-drying it may have had. More recently, the industry decided that somebody had to pay for the sawdust from the sawing, so they started to saw inside the 2" x 4" dimension. Drying and planing reduces that even further, to the now standard 1 1/2" x 3 1/2". (It was 1 5/8" x 3 5/8" only about 30 years ago, and was as much as 2 1/4" x 4 1/4" over a century ago, from my own direct observation.)

Finally, the twisted, poor-quality lumber we find in stores now is not mainly due to the way it's cut, dried and planed, which hasn't changed that much in 50 years. Rather it's due to the poor quality stock from which the lumber is drawn. You can get lots of excellent dimensional lumber out of a 30" diameter tree, but not so much out of the much smaller plantation-grown trees that are so common now.

Rob

Hartful wrote:

We are taught the metric system in school. I went to a podunk public school in a podunk city and even I learned about SI units and the metric system in various science classes.

You were taught the metric system.

Yes, it was the first thing we learned as part of a very basic science class. Physics was not offered. You can open almost any science text at all and the first thing in the front of the book is SI units and how to use scientific notation. It's probably easier to find a teacher who will teach creationism as an alternative to evolution than it is to find a science class that doesn't provide a lesson on the metric system. (Well, the SI, which is close enough.)

rstevenson wrote:Over a hundred years ago, sawyers felt obligated to deliver what the customer was paying for.

It's been a long time since many manufacturers of anything felt that way.

Chris Peterson wrote:

rstevenson wrote:Over a hundred years ago, sawyers felt obligated to deliver what the customer was paying for.

It's been a long time since many manufacturers of anything felt that way.

Indeed.

My alternate (and short-lived) career, as a donut baker, put me into one of the few remaining industries that still offer a "baker's dozen." This is probably just from the lingering memory of what could happen to a baker who short changed a customer back in the "good" old days. Hand removal does make it hard to earn a living.

Rob

rstevenson wrote:Hand removal does make it hard to earn a living.

But it's very motivating.

rstevenson wrote:Hand removal does make it hard to earn a living.

But on the bright side... IF there is one... you wouldn't have to worry about anything slipping through your fingers.

rstevenson wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

rstevenson wrote:Over a hundred years ago, sawyers felt obligated to deliver what the customer was paying for.

It's been a long time since many manufacturers of anything felt that way.

Indeed.

My alternate (and short-lived) career, as a donut baker, put me into one of the few remaining industries that still offer a "baker's dozen." This is probably just from the lingering memory of what could happen to a baker who short changed a customer back in the "good" old days. Hand removal does make it hard to earn a living.

Rob

No hands

It's like an American traveling abroad who complains "what's wrong with these people, why don't they speak my language?"

I would never say that. Exaggeration doesn't help here. I'm writing here for discussion purposes, not to be insulted.

Millions (you've already been corrected on this) of Americans

Rude.

Anyway, welcome to The Starship, Hartful. If metric units are the only things to confound you on this site, you'll being doing okay. Have a pint on me.

Clink!

Yup, that's a problem. But it isn't the problem of scientists. It's the problem of America.

Rude.

Perhaps you were educated in some backwoods school in the third world quadrant.

Rude. And I grew up in Brooklyn, New York. Can't really call it a podunk. Metric was never taught there, not one iota (is there an iota in the metric system?).

Science uses it because it is standardized, because the rest of the world uses it, and because it is vastly superior to the unit systems used in the U.S. And the response of the science community is absolutely correct: if you want to discuss science, the discussion will be conducted in SI units and their derivatives. If you don't understand them, learn them. It is your responsibility to do so if you want to be part of the discussion.

I live in the United States of America. I expect to be spoken to in English and with U.S. measurements. The metric system is not superior to the US Standard. Decimal points are just as accurate. As the saying goes, If the rest of the world jumped off the Empire State Building, would you also jump off? I really don't care what the rest of the world uses, I care about what the US uses and the US Standard should be used in America. I don't like to be part of a discussion where someone is speaking in a "language" that I don't understand and where I have to constantly use a converter in order to understand. I very much enjoy learning about our universe and I watch all the documentaries about it that I find, but they would be so much more enjoyable if the US Standard is used for the American public. I'm sure that there are MILLIONS of other people in the US who feel the same way.

Students in the U.S. are almost universally taught the metric system. Americans simply don't use this in everyday life.

I never learned it in school so I'm sure that the remainder of students in public school in New York weren't taught it for the past 50 years or so. My children weren't taught it and my friends' children weren't taught it. In the past 10 years, that's a lot of people who weren't taught the metric system in school, and that's just in 2 states in the U.S. The only reason scientists use the metric system is because they had to learn it in order to get their degrees. I got mine without have to learn it and I'm sure that BILLIONS of other people in the past 100 years didn't have to learn it in order to get their degrees.

Your original complaint lacks merit. To be blunt, it demonstrates ignorance. And worse, it demonstrates a pride in ignorance. Maybe you're just a troll- your followup response certainly makes me think that likely. But if not, here's some advice: if you're interested in science, learn the important metric units. Because science isn't going to corrupt its way of thinking to suit your obsolete units or your refusal to educate yourself.

Rude. You should be ashamed of yourself.

That's it. We're just spinning our wheels, now.