| General > General Technical Chat |
| why is the US not Metric |
| << < (206/291) > >> |
| bsfeechannel:
--- Quote from: KL27x on January 05, 2020, 09:36:40 pm ---Yes. Many other cultures/nations have historically had relatively little to preserve in comparison to the US in this aspect. This is partly because America was one of the world leaders of technological advancement from the late 1800's to today. Significant portion of this boon occurred before America even had access to metric prototypes, being on the wrong side of the globe. The foundation for a lot of today's tech was laid out in inches, in America. And the reason this worked is because America used consistently sized feet and inches across its borders. They had that sorted out from the beginning of this boon. Russia's system was a complete mess until the change over to metric. We were also in a tech race against the Axis and then the Soviet Union for many decades, post WWII. --- End quote --- In other words, the world has accomplished nothing. rstofer has already said that (with a lot less words, thankfully). What he and you are basically saying is that the US resists metrication because of this (false) perception that the rest of world simply watched passively the US become the US. So the world has no right to "tell" the US that metrication is a great idea. For the rest of the world, such perception is viewed as a sick and pathetic complex of superiority that makes US end up looking like it has accomplished nothing. --- Quote ---This has already been discussed many times in this thread, but you are intentionally blind to anything that doesn't fit your narrative. --- End quote --- I have particularly addressed this multiple times along this thread, but you insist with your theories, even though we have repeatedly debunked them. --- Quote ---Secondly, you assume all other countries other than US and Myanmar have voluntarily abandoned their customary measures in order to "get the most" out of metric, when in fact most of the globe changed to metric during regime changes that destroyed other parts of national culture and government. And even then, there is still use of traditional measuring systems in many countries besides the US. --- End quote --- The US independence was a regime change that radically destroyed a lot of traditions, the record of which is petrified in the Constitution, and inspired similar movements all over the world. Why didn't the US take advantage of that and switched to metric right from the start? |
| MT:
Let me just chime in this havoced thread allready at post 4 that GRETA+SOROS+AU climatologists says 500million animals have died in the last AU fires, in return i requested a scientific executed count report of this hard and meticulously done survey but was brutally ignored! :'( |
| TimFox:
--- Quote from: ebastler on January 05, 2020, 08:12:36 pm --- --- Quote from: TimFox on January 05, 2020, 03:46:33 pm ---the litre is only approximately 1000 cm3 --- End quote --- Say what?! :o --- End quote --- I double-checked. The liter was defined as the volume of 1 kg of water at maximum density, until 1964. The original definition of the gram was the mass of one cubic centimeter of water, but the later production of the prototype kilogram made for a slight difference between the litre and 1000 cubic centimeters. The SI unit of volume is, logically, the cubic meter. In 1964, the liter was re-defined to correspond to the cubic decimeter. |
| ebastler:
Sorry, that does not sound any clearer to me. To put it plain and simple: One liter has always been exactly the 1/1000 part of a cubic meter. It is the definition of the kg which has changed, from the earlier definition as "the mass of 1 liter of water", (edit: via a definition as "the mass of the reference kg kept in Paris"), to a definition based on Planck's constant. Edit again: Heck, you might be right?! Reading up on the definition of the liter seems to contradict what I read on the definition of the kg... Forget my above comments for now, but I'll need to dig deeper. Hard to understand that liter and meter would have been two independent definitions for a while... |
| TimFox:
As I understand the history, the liter was originally defined as 1000 cubic centimeters. The gram was originally defined as the mass of one cubic centimeter of water. The prototype kilogram was then fabricated to agree with that definition. However, due to the temperature dependence of water’s density (and perhaps the difficulty of measuring the volume of liquid water due to meniscus) there was a small discrepancy between the prototype kilogram and a liter of water. I took chemistry in high school just before the 1964 redefinition. Between 1901 and 1964, the liter was defined as the volume of 1 kg of water, slightly different from 1000 cubic centimeters. The graduated cylinders and pipettes we had in chemistry lab probably couldn’t tell the difference. However, careful weighing might well resolve the difference between the two definitions. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |