Imperial System... oh how i loathe theee!

[Frederf]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

Yes, imperial measurements are closer to how nature works.

Whoa Nelly I've got to stop you there. There ain't nothing "natural" about a yard or a nautical mile. Calling factors of primes more sensible than base-10 is a non-starter. A well distributed basis that's hard to work with is no better than an uninsightful basis that's easy to work with.

There's a subtle but important distinction between the Imperial and Metric systems when it comes to units. Feet and yards and miles and inches are four distinct different units of measuring distance while metric only has the meter. Picometer, kilometer, centimeter, etc are not actually different units of measure but simply modifiers. To have many different units for the same measure is dumb, Metric doesn't do this.

As for extolling the virtues of 1/16ths of an inch... that's not a property owned by Imperial, just commonly used with it. Fractions are not part of the measurement system. I can use 1/32nd of a meter just as easily as I can use 1/32nd of a yard.

The only reason people use knots anymore is due to how ostensibly stubborn the world is such that there are conventions that the metric system wouldn't bother tackling like 60 seconds per minute or 360 degrees in a circle. Radians are the natural unit of angular measure in a Euclidean universe, no matter what base your numbering system. Oh, 1/3600th of the circumference of the Earth... that's reasonable and not arbitrary.

[gutted]

well nautical mile does have somewhat of a relationship to nature. as for the others... they are nonsense, and metric is far superior to them.

[FIREWALL]

Metric is for short dicked guys that want it to sound bigger.

[gutted]

Ok, i gave it some thought while on the crapper earlier... and I'll agree.. Imperial system seems more useful for visualizing things, and for quantities etc. that are practical for use in everyday life. But then again, that could just be 30+ years of using it.

but when it comes to math and computations, imperial sucks.

so yeah, thats my verdict. I think i might be lost if i suddenly had to view the world in metric eyes.. but i'd rather do math in metric.

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by Frederf

As for extolling the virtues of 1/16ths of an inch... that's not a property owned by Imperial, just commonly used with it. Fractions are not part of the measurement system. I can use 1/32nd of a meter just as easily as I can use 1/32nd of a yard.

And I can and do use decimal fractions of an inch. As a matter of fact, all imperial micrometers are calibrated that way.

The imperial system is a group of measurements loosely based on the measurements of man, to measure a world and items that man uses. For that reason, the units are sized so that they are appropriate for the items they measure. Using units that are a factor of 10 larger than each other makes you use units that are inappropriately large or inappropriately small, with no choice of an intermediary unit.

Using a foot divided into 12 inches lets you divide it by six, four, three or two using whole units, a flexibility the metric system can't even dream of. Architecturally, this makes building pleasingly shaped structures a brainlessly easy task. Small prime numbers unlock concepts buried in a myriad of natural and human processes. Five and two don't cut it.

As an experiment to validate my claim. Try writing music by note durations or pitches of a "decimal" type system and see if you can make it aesthetically pleasing. Music and mathematics are intertwined systems, following the same principles. Sometimes music can convey a mathematical concept much better than digits on a piece of paper. Small prime numbers are in the "music of the spheres." (Play the spooky theremin music here)

When I play the U-Boat, I strictly use the metric system. When I play the fleet boat I use imperial. I'm equally adept at both. But the metric U-Boat retains the knot. And the non-metric time and date system. That says volumes.

[Hitman]

I'd say that, besides the easiness of calculations, imperial is really only worth to have a better understanding of longitudinal measure units, but not f.e. weigth or temperatures or similars. And the problem comes also in that you do unnecessarily divide and avoid the correct relationship of lenght with weigth. F.e. IIRC an ounze, pound or a stone are absolutely arbitrary, and in no way related with 1 cubic feet/yard of anything. In metric, a cubic decimeter is capable of containing exactly one liter of pure water, which also weigths 1 kilogram and boils at 100º celsius and freezes at 0º. In that sense, we people used to metric have a more intuitive perception of the proportions of mass and volume in the nature than people used to imperial.

The difference is that in the imperial system the units come as RR said from experience and observation done by people (sailors) who were just interested in measures, but not in weigths. The people interested in weigths (f.e. business people in the markets) developed their own system, and there is no relation between them. In metric it is at least coherent, and that's already a lot.

But that said, as someone with a bit of experience in sailing, I prefer imperial for anything nautic related, though of course I also can work well with metrics.

Cheers

[Blood_splat]

I can use both in game but in real life I can picture things better in inches, feet, yards, and miles.

[Munchausen]

Originally Posted by Frederf

The only reason people use knots anymore is due to how ostensibly stubborn the world is such that there are conventions that the metric system wouldn't bother tackling like 60 seconds per minute or 360 degrees in a circle. Radians are the natural unit of angular measure in a Euclidean universe, no matter what base your numbering system. Oh, 1/3600th of the circumference of the Earth... that's reasonable and not arbitrary.

A daunting task. Let's see ... you'd need to change the number of latitude lines from 180 to ... what? 100? That would put the North Pole at 50 degrees north latitude. Divide each degree into 100 parts ... the distance between each part being the new nautical (metric) mile?

Do the same with longitude ... changing 360 to ... what? Not much in the way of metrics unless you either settle on 100 again ... or greatly increase the number of lines to 1000. Either way, you'll need to make major changes to the whole system of time zones. Not to mention the Lat/Long coordinate system.

Btw, the current system is based on navigation ... which is based on time. Clocks. Timepieces. Which are based on the movement of the earth around the sun. 365 days ... rounded off to 360 so time could be divided into smaller units (without having anything left over). The difficulty wasn't so much in using 360 as it was in trying to cram 360 into a base-10 system of numbers (thanks to our "natural" proclivity for ten fingers). Ergo, we have six sets of ten minutes in each hour. And six sets of ten seconds in each minute.

Etc.

[Rockin Robbins]

During the French revolution, when the metric system was strong-arming its way to ascendancy, there was an attempt to kill off the week and the month to make metric time. For once even the French bowed to common sense and recognized how stupid that was.

[Frederf]

Originally Posted by Munchausen

A daunting task. Let's see ... you'd need to change the number of latitude lines from 180 to ... what? 100?

It'd be radians, the only unit of angular measure where the slope of angle vs. sine (angle) approaches unity around inflection points. Yeah it'd change the coordinate system and time. I'm not saying it's worth it but that's what you'd do.

Try writing music by note durations or pitches of a "decimal" type system

Music is already written in base-10 dummy. It's all base-10 fractions. Thirds, fourths, halves... this is fractions which are not to be confused with what separates Imperial from Metric. The characteristic distinction of Metric from Imperial is that Imperial has not 10^X conversion factors between units of the same measure or their derived units are not based on simple combinations of base units.

A L is 10x10x10cm. A gallon is ?x?x? inches? Yeah not a pretty number.

In building we rarely use mixed feet-inches when we can get away with it. A stud is 92 and a quarter inches. No builders would call a wall stud 7' 8 1/4." Until around 100" we mostly work in inches unless it happens to be a whole number of feet like 5x10' or something. The mixing of different units for the same measure is unsavory even for an industry most accustomed to it.

The Imperial system suffers due to its age, having come about piecemeal over a long period of time. The streets around the center of Paris are wholly unsuited for modern use but will remain because they were laid long ago without suitable design before modern methods, abilities, and uses came into being.

Kelvin starts at 0, Fahrenheit starts at -459.67.

[Rockin Robbins]

Actually Fahrenheit starts at 0, "damned cold," and goes to 100 at "damned hot." That's pretty damned precise! And again based on human perception: a temperature system designed for humans' inherent sense of temperature, instead of some ridiculously ungrokkable and impossible to experience absolute zero.

Musical duration notation is not base 10 at all. It is all based on twos, threes, fours, eights and twelves. Some strange music is based on fives (even then it tends to be counted as two-three or three-two), but it is very rarely encountered and I have played some 7/4 time, which is most bizarre, but that is strictly for showoffs in the music field and never has achieved any popularity outside esoteric classical and progressive rock music. There are no examples I can think of where a measure is composed of 10 beats or any multiple.

As far as the mathematical relationship between pitches, we use a scale based on a scale of C, C#, D, D#, E, F, F#, G, G#, A, A#, B, C. That's 13 semi-tones, a prime number, with 12 intervals. Our major, minor, diminished, and other variant scales are eight notes with varied spacing depending on the type of scale. A major scale, for instance, has seven intervals of whole step, whole step, half step, whole step, whole step, whole step, half step. None of these mathematical relationships are factors of 10 or a base 10 system. Actually the frequency of the lower C to the C at the top of that scale is exactly double.

Although mathemeticians seem to insist the frequency of middle C is 256 hz, musicians use 262 hz and ignore them. The C above middle C is exactly double the frequency, or 524 hz. This relationship between pitches is also not based on powers of 10. The universe just doesn't work that way. Music agrees with the rest of the universe in working as the products and ratios of small prime numbers. It's really very curious and amazing how our base 10 numerical system hides that central and incomprehensibly important fact.

[gutted]

its 12 semitones.. not 13.

the 13th semitone is the octave of the 1st (.ie same note at different frequency), and hence would be like calling metric a base 11 system.

side note:
It's called an octave because it's the 8th note in the major scale (which all other western scales are based off).

<--- guitar player

[FIREWALL]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

Actually Fahrenheit starts at 0, "damned cold," and goes to 100 at "damned hot." That's pretty damned precise! And again based on human perception: a temperature system designed for humans' inherent sense of temperature, instead of some ridiculously ungrokkable and impossible to experience absolute zero.

Musical duration notation is not base 10 at all. It is all based on twos, threes, fours, eights and twelves. Some strange music is based on fives (even then it tends to be counted as two-three or three-two), but it is very rarely encountered and I have played some 7/4 time, which is most bizarre, but that is strictly for showoffs in the music field and never has achieved any popularity outside esoteric classical and progressive rock music. There are no examples I can think of where a measure is composed of 10 beats or any multiple.

As far as the mathematical relationship between pitches, we use a scale based on a scale of C, C#, D, D#, E, F, F#, G, G#, A, A#, B, C. That's 13 semi-tones, a prime number, with 12 intervals. Our major, minor, diminished, and other variant scales are eight notes with varied spacing depending on the type of scale. A major scale, for instance, has seven intervals of whole step, whole step, half step, whole step, whole step, whole step, half step. None of these mathematical relationships are factors of 10 or a base 10 system. Actually the frequency of the lower C to the C at the top of that scale is exactly double.

Although mathemeticians seem to insist the frequency of middle C is 256 hz, musicians use 262 hz and ignore them. The C above middle C is exactly double the frequency, or 524 hz. This relationship between pitches is also not based on powers of 10. The universe just doesn't work that way. Music agrees with the rest of the universe in working as the products and ratios of small prime numbers. It's really very curious and amazing how our base 10 numerical system hides that central and incomprehensibly important fact.

What he said. RR

[Rockin Robbins]

Actually I suppose you could mishandle some liquid nitrogen and experience something close to absolute zero. It wouldn't be a pleasant experience.

And gutted, I've never played a scale without playing the entire octave, which includes the top note. Actually what your brain evaluates is the 12 intervals, NOT the 13 semi-tones. If you leave off that top note, one octave above the first, you lose that last half step interval that defines the major scale.

Also, if you detune the entire scale by any number of hertz but keep the same intervals, the music sounds fine and you'll probably not even notice. I do that all the time with my chronotron to tune recordings for singers' ranges, although usually I'll transpose by an even number of halftones just out of habit. If I encounter a singer with perfect pitch and don't restrict myself to that convention, they get all discombobulated.

[gutted]

to be technical about it, a diatonic scale by definition is 7 tones.. not 8.

everybody includes the octave in it because it sounds nice playing to the octave and then back. .ie the last half step to the octave in the major scale is not really part of the scale.

on guitar.. the major scale is usually played as two octaves.