Actual poster from 1917 that made me laugh. A lot.

Also, those motherfuckers are measuring the weight of those balls in kilograms, aren’t they?

  • FelixCress@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    From John Bazell “In metric, one milliliter of water occupies one cubic centimeter, weighs one gram, and requires one calorie of energy to heat up by one degree centigrade—which is 1 percent of the difference between its freezing point and its boiling point. An amount of hydrogen weighing the same amount has exactly one mole of atoms in it. Whereas in the American system, the answer to ‘How much energy does it take to boil a room-temperature gallon of water?’ is ‘Go fuck yourself,’ because you can’t directly relate any of those quantities.”

    • Cort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      I mean, 1btu is required per pound of water per degree Farenheit. About 8lbs/gal and raising it 142°f would mean 1136btus

      • finley@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        that’s a lot of words and numbers for, “go fuck yourself”

        • sparkle@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          The calorie used to be the base unit, until we released in the 19th century “wait, heat isn’t a gas” and threw out caloric theory, and made the joule. Now the calorie is defined as 4.184 joules.

          • MewtwoLikesMemes@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Yes, you’re right.

            There have been multiple iterations of the “metric system” since it’s introduction in 1792–1795, most notably the original 1795 draft variant, then the CGS (Centimeter-Gram-Second) version, then the MKS (meter-kilogram-second) variant, with the most recent incarnation being the International System of Units (SI).

            That’s why there are plenty of metric units, but not all of them are SI units. :)

             


            Edit: Changed “1892–1895” to “1792–1795”. Lol, whoops.

    • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      There’s a popular argument against religion that essentially says that if any trace of a specific religion were wiped off the face of the Earth, it would never come back. As in there’d probably be something in its place, but there’d be no way that the specific beliefs practiced by that religion would ever return. Whereas if a piece of scientific knowledge were similarly wiped from human knowledge, it would eventually be rediscovered.

      A similar argument can be made with the metric system: I think that if standardized measurement systems disappeared from the face of the Earth today, something extremely similar would eventually be invented and adopted. It’s just too internally consistent and human mental math too grounded in decimal for it not to be. You’d probably even end up with a prefix-based (probably even Greek) naming scheme.

      Now consider USC: the units fail to fit together in basically any meaningful way. They try but fail to be base-2, so you can’t even come at it from the already-tenuous angle of base-2 being better than base-10 (e.g. volume skips what two quarts would be, weight is more like base-16 (???), and distance just does something so insane that probably 95% of American adults couldn’t tell you how many feet there are in a mile). There are dozens of completely arbitrary, unintuitive, antiquated-sounding names (e.g. “horsepower”). Although the bases for metric measurements are rather arbitrary, they are extraordinarily precise, so much so that USC bases its own measurements off of insane but precise multiples of metric units. That’s not to say that humans would jump straight to metric or anything, but moreso that whatever would fill USC’s role as an intermediary between nothing and the metric-like system would likey be unrecognizable from current USC.

      • Omgpwnies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        The “intuitiveness” of imperial measurements is that they’re sorta human-scaled, at least for human-sized measurements. An inch is about the same length as the tip of my thumb, a foot is about as big as my foot, a yard is a single pace if I stretch a bit, etc. which makes it easier for a person to picture it.

        Once you get out of that scale it really starts to break down though.

    • backgroundcow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      … weighs one gram … An amount of hydrogen weighing the same amount has exactly one mole of atoms in it.

      Not only was this never true - the sentence would have to have say “An amount of carbon-12 atoms weighing 12 times this amount has exactly 1 mole atoms in it” (far less elegant) – but not even this is true any longer after the fuckup in redefining the mole in 2019, after which all these relations between amount of substance and mass are only approximate.

      • repungnant_canary@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        the fuckup in redefining the mole in 2019

        What? It was necessary due to our observations of the universe (on every scale), not some arbitrary “fuckup”