Why does Britain seem to retain more imperial measurements than other countries?

[Ameriscot]

Originally Posted by Jezer

Where is this thread going?

Off into a black hole.

[Gungnir]

Originally Posted by Jezer

Where is this thread going?

Actually it isn't going very far because while I don't care at all which measurement scale is chosen as a standard, no one is able to tell me definitively why metric is any better than Imperial other than it being a denary number based system (and that is no longer the most common form of number base used on earth).

It's not surprising no one can tell me definitively why one form of measurement system is better than any other. My big issue is that people have this concept that Metric is better because it's more scientific, so I'm more than happy to bust that myth wherever I hear it. SI have spent a lot of time (and money) working out the questions from the known answers to provide an illusion of authority, where none really exists.

In much of the SI we have situations which approximate to the following logical flow...
Grass is green because it reflects light in the wavelength of 510 nm
But why is it green
Because it absorbs light of all other visible wavelengths

Now naively this is a perfectly acceptable answer, however deeper it's completely circular.

Consider the definition of a second (from the SI brochure)
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.

OK so why choose 9,192,631,770 periods, why not one, 9B, 10B, 9.1B? How does it compare to the previous standard (1/31,556,925.9747 of a Tropical Year January 0 at 12 Ephemeris time) well it's 1 in 10^10 accurate (actually shorter by this amount which accounts for leap seconds). This clearly is no accident, however SI did make a big thing about disconnecting from ephemeris time, and then didn't really if they had then they would have chosen something a little more memorable.

I would just like one day for the Chairman of SI to come out and say the following...
"You know here's the standard, and here's what it's based on. We chose water (in these isotopic ratios) because we did, we chose the length of a second and the mass of a kilogram for historical reasons, we then based all other measures off of values derived from them because it just made sense."

Instead we get a meter is 1/299,792,458 of the distance light will travel in one second in a vacuum. However the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s this clearly displays the circular reference, moreover it also displays once again the retention of a historical standard, c approximates to 3x10^8 m/s so why not just define c as 3x10^8 m/s and then make one meter the same standard (and make meters marginally smaller by 0.7mm) would that be a huge deal? Only if you have some kind of illogical desire to retain the original length of a standard meter, and if that is the case, then the entire premise is flawed. It proves beyond any reasonable doubt that SI is attempting to find the question to a known answer, rather that providing the most accurate representations of measures possible.

[Jan Alaska]

Originally Posted by Jezer

Where is this thread going?

We were waiting on Stephen Hawking to chime in and explain what Gungnir was saying ...

#99 in 101 ways to confuse an old lady: grow up in the '60 with imperial, live through the 00's with everything changing to metric and then move to the US where they have an entirely different way of measuring everything ! Talk about confused, I still don't know exactly what a cup is but it seems to work ok when I'm making muffins and then when we visited 'home' trying to order 4oz of cheese only to be told it was all metric ... umm whats 4oz in grams ??? I ended up with a smallish slither of very delicious cheese but still have no idea what I actually ordered

[Transmition]

Originally Posted by Gungnir

Actually it isn't going very far because while I don't care at all which measurement scale is chosen as a standard, no one is able to tell me definitively why metric is any better than Imperial other than it being a denary number based system (and that is no longer the most common form of number base used on earth).

Denary is the most commonly used by people, so a measuring system based on it is preferred over one that doesn't (and I work in hexadecimal all day, but I know that I am unusual in that). The amounts in SI units being arbitrary is irrelevant as long as they are consistent.

Accuracy is not important for something that is being used for unscientific purposes. Who is going to be able to tell the difference between 86F and 87F? Who is able to consistently and accurately record those temperatures? If you start recording to the nearest half degree C then is that now more accurate? For the purposes of knowing whether to wear a coat, the measurements and accuracy are insignificant, but for predicting the weather they are very significant.

All these things depend entirely on what you use them for. If you want ease of use for people then metric tends to rule the day for distance, mass and volume.

[Gungnir]

Originally Posted by Transmition

Denary is the most commonly used by people, so a measuring system based on it is preferred over one that doesn't (and I work in hexadecimal all day, but I know that I am unusual in that). The amounts in SI units being arbitrary is irrelevant as long as they are consistent.

Accuracy is not important for something that is being used for unscientific purposes. Who is going to be able to tell the difference between 86F and 87F? Who is able to consistently and accurately record those temperatures? If you start recording to the nearest half degree C then is that now more accurate? For the purposes of knowing whether to wear a coat, the measurements and accuracy are insignificant, but for predicting the weather they are very significant.

All these things depend entirely on what you use them for. If you want ease of use for people then metric tends to rule the day for distance, mass and volume.

Thanks for posting this, because you've just stated the one and only benefit of SI being it's in denary. However if you're converting one thing, then there is a strong argument for converting another at the same time.

We both agree both systems are arbitrary.

However that said, it raises questions, if consistency is important, then Imperial is just as good as Metric.

If accuracy is not important then Imperial is just as good as Metric. Even if it is important, then it's entirely about how accurately a measure is made or calculated. Both systems have the same issue of consistency of units for calculation, whatever units you start with for length, mass, temperature, time must be consistent throughout and the result will be in those units you can then convert to a more reasonable primary unit after you achieve that result

However what does not tie up, is ease of use for people. If it did there would be little resistance to change (and not in the engineering and science fields, where most people can flip between the two with minimal effort), and there has been significant resistance to change especially in Canada, in the UK it's been enforced by law (and not just through weights and measures, but by prohibition on the use of Imperial units, with few exceptions, you cannot sell something priced per imperial unit without at least an equivalent price per metric unit), it was enforced by law in Australia but there was minimal resistance. If ease of use is the case, then enforcement by law would not be required, people would just jump to using the easier standard, it's not like during a transition there are not two standards operating side by side anyway.

It's also not accurate to say it instills and enforces consistency, take oil trading, in UK/US/Can it's traded in barrels (42 US Gallons), in Europe by Mass (Tonnes/Kilo's) and in the rest of the world by Cubic Meter. While converting from 42 US gallons to cubic meters is trivial, converting from 42 gallons to Kilo's is extremely non-trivial, you need to know the density of the oil, the temperature of that oil, and it's expansion coefficient, or, you need to ensure that you have temperature stabilized tanks so that a volume delivery will provide an accurate mass delivery for a specific grade of oil.