Re: Metric Time (was Re: Why not 13 months? (Was La Systeme Metrique))
Whittet (Whittet@shore.net)
11 Oct 1995 03:20:49 GMT
In article <cas.266.00FA9FB1@ops1.bwi.wec.com>, cas@ops1.bwi.wec.com says...
>
>In article <45bvu4$b39@shore.shore.net> Whittet@shore.net (Whittet) writes:
>>From: Whittet@shore.net (Whittet)
>>Subject: Re: Metric Time (was Re: Why not 13 months? (Was La Systeme Metrique
>))
>>Date: 9 Oct 1995 20:16:04 GMT
>
><snip>
>
>>Historically, the use of metric units breaks a precedent stretching
>>back unbroken for five millenia. If you feel no sadness at the passing
>>of the very essence of what it has meant to be able to measure, weigh,
>>judge and decide throughout the entire course of our existence as civilized
>>human beings, then perhaps it is useless to discuss this further in an
>>archaeological forum.
>
>I see. Would you, then, prefer bushels (volumetric), furlongs or "day's
>marches" (land distance), and stone (weight)?
The original measures are actually derived from Horus Eye fractions
and relate lengths to volumes as the side of a cube to the space it
encloses. They are also related to time which is a very convenient system
indeed.
Because metric intervals require steps of ten times the previous value,
whereas English measures allow a choice of proportions, the English measures
are actually much easier to use in practical reckonings.
And are you unaware that the
>meter is derived from the size of the Earth (1/10,000,000 of the distance from
>the Equator to the North Pole, measured along the meridian through Paris,
>although it is now defined (I believe) in terms of wavelengths of light)?
Yes, because its measurement of the earth was wrong. The meter is not
1/10,000,000 of the distance from the Equator to the North Pole, measured
along the meridian through Paris, hence a new standard was required.
The foot is geocommensurate, were you aware of that?
>Although I don't remember the derivations for the gram and the meter, they
>were not arbitrary, but were derived from measurable and repeatable physical
>properties, and are thus no more "unnatural" than the pound or foot (perhaps
>less so, since the foot was originally derived from the length of the actual
>foot of a particular monarch [Henry II?], and would be difficult to verify
>today).
The foot was originally derived from the relation of the circumference of the
earth to the length of a year in Egypt c 2500 BC.
During the middle ages its true value became uncertain, hence it was "corrected"
by a monarch who very likely had considerable input from such interested parties
as the merchants in his kingdom.
The frequency with which such fairytales are required to be parroted back and
repeated by rote in what passes for schools as if it were intended that they
be accepted as facts has been noted several times in this group.
>.
>>Steve
>
>
>Bob C.
>
Steve
|