Redefine the metric system
Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates
Redefine the metric system
Lets suppose you were given the power to redefine the metric system to make the values fit better. What would you change? Assume everything is called the same, and you still have the same prefixes with the same meaning, you just change the actual value for metres, seconds, grams, etc.

 Posts: 309
 Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:27 am UTC
 evilbeanfiend
 Posts: 2650
 Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:05 am UTC
 Location: the old world
Well changing c (299792458 m/s) to exactly 3*10^8 m/s wouldn't be that bad. A metre would only change by a few millimetres.
EDIT: A new metre would be 0.99930819333... old metres, so there would be no change to normal people.
EDIT: A new metre would be 0.99930819333... old metres, so there would be no change to normal people.
Peshmerga wrote:A blow job would probably get you a LOT of cheeseburgers.
But I digress.

 Posts: 309
 Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:27 am UTC
I'd take a tip from the high energy physicists: redefine so that c = h = h_bar = mu_naught = epsilon_naught = pi = G =1.
High energy physicists actually do things like this (I admit I carried it a bit to the extreme) but then at the end of their calculations, they use dimensional analysis to find out how many c's and h_bar's etc. that they need for the correct answer.
Once, a high energy physics professor was doing a calculation in class and in order to get the right answer in the end said "and we can see through dimensional analysis, we need a 2*pi in here"....
High energy physicists actually do things like this (I admit I carried it a bit to the extreme) but then at the end of their calculations, they use dimensional analysis to find out how many c's and h_bar's etc. that they need for the correct answer.
Once, a high energy physics professor was doing a calculation in class and in order to get the right answer in the end said "and we can see through dimensional analysis, we need a 2*pi in here"....
I've never made anyone's life easier and you know it.
 gmalivuk
 GNU Terry Pratchett
 Posts: 26823
 Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
 Location: Here and There
 Contact:
CellBlock wrote:I'd use the FFF system, where length is measured in Furlongs, mass in Firkins (of water), and time in Fortnights.
The speed of light is approximately 1.8 megafurlongs per microfortnight.
If you're actually using FFF, that should be 1.8 tera furlongs per fortnight. Otherwise, you're talking an FFÂµF system or something.
Planck units are not useful for everyday applications, but we could adjust them by orders of magnitude. For instance, the Pgram (Planck gram) could be 10^6 Planck masses, or about 21.7 old grams. The Psecond becomes 10^44 Planck times, or about 5 old seconds. Then, while the physical constants are no longer all equal to 1, they are all integer powers of ten.
 intimidat0r
 Posts: 73
 Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 6:32 am UTC
 evilbeanfiend
 Posts: 2650
 Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:05 am UTC
 Location: the old world
 Torn Apart By Dingos
 Posts: 817
 Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 2:27 am UTC
bonder wrote:I'd take a tip from the high energy physicists: redefine so that c = h = h_bar = mu_naught = epsilon_naught = pi = G =1.
High energy physicists actually do things like this (I admit I carried it a bit to the extreme) but then at the end of their calculations, they use dimensional analysis to find out how many c's and h_bar's etc. that they need for the correct answer.
Once, a high energy physics professor was doing a calculation in class and in order to get the right answer in the end said "and we can see through dimensional analysis, we need a 2*pi in here"....
How can pi be changed? I suppose a special angle unit which is not equal to 1 could be introduced, but pi appears in things that doesn't have anything to do with angles.
Re: Redefine the metric system
zenten wrote:Lets suppose you were given the power to redefine the metric system to make the values fit better. What would you change? Assume everything is called the same, and you still have the same prefixes with the same meaning, you just change the actual value for metres, seconds, grams, etc.
Personally? A meter would be the length of my foot. I could make and sell my own rulers and measure things easily.
Makes as much sense as the real meter: http://www.surveyhistory.org/the_standard_meter1.htm
If it's related to some ratio that requires 10 numbers to express... it's just as silly as any other length. The metric system is nice because you don't really have to do any math or make approximations to convert units in your head.
(They might as well just get as convoluted as they can... the meter is... the distance light travels in 1/(pi*1e8) seconds in a vacuum... or in e^(20) {< my favorite!} seconds... or 1/(2*sqrt(2)*1e8) seconds)
We will use units that we can easily wield. That's why there are certain metric units that even the scientific community fails to widely accept... the poor pascal... at least we can sort of talk about MPa (at least in atmospheric sciences).
The difference between science and the fuzzy subjects is that science requires reasoning while those other subjects merely require scholarship.
Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat. From books by R.A.Heinlein
Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat. From books by R.A.Heinlein
 LE4dGOLEM
 is unique......wait, no!!!!
 Posts: 5972
 Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:10 pm UTC
 Location: :uoıʇɐɔol
HYPERiON wrote:Well pi (and phi and other cool numbers) are just ratios. You can't change them.
Or can ye? I propose the triright angledtriangle as the basis for all measurements.
The length of the sides necessary to accomodate three right angles per triangle shall henceforth be defined as one metre, and can easily be determined through basic trig.
Une See Fights  crayon superish hero webcomic!
doogly wrote:It would just be much better if it were not shitty.
 gmalivuk
 GNU Terry Pratchett
 Posts: 26823
 Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
 Location: Here and There
 Contact:
LE4dGOLEM wrote:HYPERiON wrote:Well pi (and phi and other cool numbers) are just ratios. You can't change them.
Or can ye? I propose the triright angledtriangle as the basis for all measurements.
The length of the sides necessary to accomodate three right angles per triangle shall henceforth be defined as one metre, and can easily be determined through basic trig.
Well, that's kind of how it started, on Earth anyway. See, the meter was originally 1 tenmillionth of the distance from the equator to the north pole, on a great circle route through Paris. I believe this distance (10,000,000 meters) is therefore the length of a side necessary to make a 270Âº equilateral triangle on the surface of our homeworld.
I think the earlier pi question arose because the only way h can have the same value as h_bar is if 2pi is 1.
 RealGrouchy
 Nobody Misses Me As Much As Meaux.
 Posts: 6704
 Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 7:17 am UTC
 Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
 Contact:
bonder wrote:I'd take a tip from the high energy physicists: redefine so that c = h = h_bar = mu_naught = epsilon_naught = pi = G =1.
High energy physicists actually do things like this (I admit I carried it a bit to the extreme) but then at the end of their calculations, they use dimensional analysis to find out how many c's and h_bar's etc. that they need for the correct answer.
Once, a high energy physics professor was doing a calculation in class and in order to get the right answer in the end said "and we can see through dimensional analysis, we need a 2*pi in here"....
Let me interpolate here: "dimensional analysis" = "looking at the answer in the back of the textbook and multiplying your answer to suit"?
Not in Cartesian space; map a circle onto the right kind of cone, though, and pi can equal 1.HYPERiON wrote:Well pi (and phi and other cool numbers) are just ratios. You can't change them.
 RG>
Jack Saladin wrote:etc., lock'd
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:At least he has the decency to REMOVE THE GAP BETWEEN HIS QUOTES....
Sungura wrote:I don't really miss him. At all. He was pretty grouchy.
 evilbeanfiend
 Posts: 2650
 Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:05 am UTC
 Location: the old world
 evilbeanfiend
 Posts: 2650
 Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:05 am UTC
 Location: the old world
zenten wrote:gmalivuk wrote:evilbeanfiend wrote:why bother pretending that's not how it's defined already?
Because 9,192,631,770 is generally not considered to be a "round number".
Anyone know of the smallest base where it would be?
I don't think there is one. A script could probably confirm this by looking for an answer that's an integer to log x++ 9,192,631,770...or something along those lines.
 RealGrouchy
 Nobody Misses Me As Much As Meaux.
 Posts: 6704
 Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 7:17 am UTC
 Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
 Contact:
The problem with an hypothetical perfect metric systemparticularly timeis that it assumes that the world can be conveniently decimated. However, there's no escaping the fact that the earth rotates 365 times as fast as it circumnavigates the sun.
Tie that into trying to find a decent base for measuring distance based on some nice clean fraction of the speed of light or something, and you get a bunch of (metaphorical) points that don't connect into a straight line.
 RG>
Tie that into trying to find a decent base for measuring distance based on some nice clean fraction of the speed of light or something, and you get a bunch of (metaphorical) points that don't connect into a straight line.
 RG>
Jack Saladin wrote:etc., lock'd
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:At least he has the decency to REMOVE THE GAP BETWEEN HIS QUOTES....
Sungura wrote:I don't really miss him. At all. He was pretty grouchy.

 Posts: 80
 Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:01 am UTC
 skeptical scientist
 closedminded spiritualist
 Posts: 6142
 Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:09 am UTC
 Location: San Francisco
It seems like an evident and relevant truth to me. Year is a much more useful measurement than kiloday, and day is a much more useful measurement than centiyear. Time is more conveniently measured by something other than a metric system.
I'm looking forward to the day when the SNES emulator on my computer works by emulating the elementary particles in an actual, physical box with Nintendo stamped on the side.
"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson
"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson
I propose a change slightly more radical than changing just the metric system. I think we should change from a base 10 number system to a base 12 number system and then modify the metric system to be based on powers of 12 rather than powers of 10.
I've never made anyone's life easier and you know it.
 skeptical scientist
 closedminded spiritualist
 Posts: 6142
 Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:09 am UTC
 Location: San Francisco
Why would you want to do that when we have a base 10 number system?
Last edited by skeptical scientist on Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:04 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I'm looking forward to the day when the SNES emulator on my computer works by emulating the elementary particles in an actual, physical box with Nintendo stamped on the side.
"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson
"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson
skeptical scientist wrote:Why would you want to do that when we have a base 10 number system?
Base 12, having more factors, would be a more convenient base than base 10. Just because we have 10 fingers does not mean that we need to have a base 10 number system: the Babylonians had a base 60 number system.
There are even groups advocating a change to a base 12 number system:
The merits of base twelve are due to the great factorability of the number twelve, the next really useful number being sixty, but this latter number is rather too large to be chosen as an everyday number base. Ten is unsatisfactory because its factors 2 and 5 include the prime 5 which in turn is not as useful as the prime 3 (though one professor of mathematics complained that I was not being really fair to the number 5 when I said this ... ). The dozen, and the dozen dozen, or gross, have shown their usefulness in packing and packaging over many, many years.
The quote is from The Dozenal Society of Great Britain
I've never made anyone's life easier and you know it.
bonder wrote:I propose a change slightly more radical than changing just the metric system. I think we should change from a base 10 number system to a base 12 number system and then modify the metric system to be based on powers of 12 rather than powers of 10.
Oh, I agree too. I just didn't want to bring it up in the OP.
 Torn Apart By Dingos
 Posts: 817
 Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 2:27 am UTC
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: albercook and 12 guests