Actually the base unit for mass is the Newton, not the kilogram.
It is also handy that gravity approximates to 10.
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
WhiteBlue wrote:What is the rational behind such an alien proposal? Do you have six fingers on your hand?Pup wrote:We should switch everything to base 12.
The only reason our current decimal system seems more logical is because we've chosen to limit ourselves to ten digits. And the only reason we did that is because Europeans were too stupid to count to 12 on their fingers, like the Babylonians who centuries earlier were wildly counting to 12 on one hand every day. Of course the Babys goofily combined 12 and 10 base systems into a 60-base one, but that's beside the point. The point is that I can easily count by 12 on my fingers and so can you just by touching the tip of my thumb to one of your 12 finger joints. And the broader point of course 12 is a far better base since it is divisible easily into thirds and quarters as well as in half, which is something 10 just never could pick up on.WhiteBlue wrote:We are not going to eliminate the duodecimal base completely from our world, that is true. The clock is split in twelve hours, the year in twelve months and the circle in 360° polar coordinates. Those conventions were made before the power of the decimal system on metrics was fully appreciated. In the dark age of feudalism you had a different set of units when you crossed the border of one local aristocrat to the next. It is a shame that the British empire did not come across the elegance of the decimal system before they aquired the power to rule more than half the world. The Romans and Napoleon were a bit luckier in that.
The Newton is the derived unit of force. It is defined as the force needed to accelerate one kilogram at one metre per second per second. The dimension of the Newton is kg.m/s^2richard_leeds wrote:Actually the base unit for mass is the Newton, not the kilogram.
It is also handy that gravity approximates to 10.
Why is that? You have a better intuitive sense of 11,000 than 33,000? As for myself, I find the idea of a 'foot' far more intuitive than the estimated radius of the earth at an arbitrary point divided by ten million. On a more human scale, it's far easier to relate to a standard countertop height being three feet rather than 910cm.Belatti wrote:And you are all forgetting about temperature. Water freezing and boiling points at normal atmosferical pressures are an easy and "decimal" way to measure temperature.
You know, if it rains and the temp is below 0°c you know its snow. Has more sense than saying "if the temp is below 32°f"...
Yesterday I took a flight and the captain said "we are travelling at 11.000 metres above the sea level" and you instantly know that the ground is 11 kilometres below, you get a feel of where are you. Now, when he translated that to English, well... 36,000 feet doesnt give me a clue.
Congratulations. You just managed to insult a complete continent. Quite some feat on F1technical.Pup wrote:And the only reason we did that is because Europeans were too stupid to count to 12 on their fingers.
The big point of the positional decimal system is avoiding the use of fraction. The basic numerals are supposed to cover a number of items that are visually easy recognizable which is starting to get complicated even for the the higher numbers in the decimal system. So in my view it is good enough that the base of ten is divisible into half and fifths. The fractions of the duodecimal system are usually nothing but a pain in the behind. I much rather deal with decimal odds for instance. Give me 3.7 and 5.2 to compare and I know instantly what is meant compared to 11/12 and 5/7 which is only confusing.Pup wrote:And the broader point of course 12 is a far better base since it is divisible easily into thirds and quarters as well as in half.
The original meter was based on one forty-millionth of the earth's circumferance, you can read all about it on Wiki Pup.Pup wrote:
As for myself, I find the idea of a 'foot' far more intuitive than the estimated radius of the earth at an arbitrary point divided by ten million.
Well, my friend who races horses would agree.Just_a_fan wrote:@Pup
The only thing 'humna' about the 'foot' as a unit of measurement is that it shares the name of a human appendage. There is nothing remotely rational about the foot.
Howabout we use the 'hand' as a unit of measurement? At least that is supposed to be related to the human equivalent...
I still don't know why you're hung up on fractions. I'm fine with either, though I do think it's easier to think of Vettel as being 5/8 as skilled as Hamilton as opposed to 0.625. Likewise, when we hear that 9 out of 10 F1 fans think Michael Schumacher is a twat, we have an intuitive understanding that he needs to retire.WhiteBlue wrote:Pup, have a look at this, which is called fractional by William Hill
and this which is called decimal
I believe that very few people will figure the fractional view faster than the decimal. It simply needs more abstract thinking because most people can easily visualize decimal fractions. And that was my whole point. People who use decimal fractions are not dumber. They are simply using a more efficient system that allows them to be lazier, which is the whole point of engineering. The engineers who designed the first carriages or the aqueducts made their and their fellow contemporaries life easier.
Oh snap. Now it all makes sense.xpensive wrote:The original meter was based on one forty-millionth of the earth's circumferance, you can read all about it on Wiki Pup.
That is not the point Pup, it's just yet another xample of how you "imperials" can't even get your facts straight,Pup wrote:Oh snap. Now it all makes sense.xpensive wrote:The original meter was based on one forty-millionth of the earth's circumferance, you can read all about it on Wiki Pup.