|
|
Re: Metric Time (was Re: Why not 13 months? (Was La Systeme Metrique))
Bob Casanova (cas@ops1.bwi.wec.com)
Tue, 10 Oct 1995 16:11:10 GMT
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)? 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)?
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).
>Steve
Bob C.
* Good, fast, cheap! (Pick 2) *
|