Restrict the Metric System
- Thread starter mowque
- Start date
Well I imagine Australia (and NZ) and Canada will remain mostly on imperial measurements, though I don't know about India, that could go either way.
Of course one thing that will hurt the traditionalists (those who support keeping the old measurements) is the difference between imperial and US customary measurements.
Of course one thing that will hurt the traditionalists (those who support keeping the old measurements) is the difference between imperial and US customary measurements.
Would there be any plausible way to get rid of those differences in the timeframe provided? That could be helpful.
this sound odd but in the France homeland of Metric system,
the bureaucracy of building authorities, refused the Metric system until 1960s !
Architect Le Corbusier try with the Modulor system a compromise between the Imperial system and the Metric system.
the bureaucracy of building authorities, refused the Metric system until 1960s !
Architect Le Corbusier try with the Modulor system a compromise between the Imperial system and the Metric system.
Some kind of rationalization of the Imperial units at some point would help, maybe a project by the Royal Society. Something in the mid-1700s that wasn't an Act of Parliament would probably be adopted informally by gentlemen throughout the English-speaking world and would eventually make it into their respective legal codes.
Have an *metric system that is more explicitly revolutionary and atheistic, so its not as widely adopted.
Have a couple of rival metric systems (revolutions break out in more than one country at the same time? Serious internal fractures in revolutionary France that extend to scholarship, so that one system is see as Jacobin and the other Girondist?).
Have the Pope put his weight behind some kind of standard and workable Latin measures of mass, length, and volume, preferably earlier on, in addition to the papal calendaric reforms.
Have an *metric system that is more explicitly revolutionary and atheistic, so its not as widely adopted.
Have a couple of rival metric systems (revolutions break out in more than one country at the same time? Serious internal fractures in revolutionary France that extend to scholarship, so that one system is see as Jacobin and the other Girondist?).
Have the Pope put his weight behind some kind of standard and workable Latin measures of mass, length, and volume, preferably earlier on, in addition to the papal calendaric reforms.
Thande
Donor
Have it culturally associated with the excesses of revolutionary France, or have it dismissed by the Directory or Napoleon as they did to the revolutionary calendar etc.
This is hard though because, although I like to rag on the metric system, it is so much better than what France (and Europe as a whole) had before. There wasn't one imperial system over there, there were hundreds depending on the region. Look at the key from an 18th century map of France, which has to give distances with NINE different definitions of a mile from different parts of France:
This is hard though because, although I like to rag on the metric system, it is so much better than what France (and Europe as a whole) had before. There wasn't one imperial system over there, there were hundreds depending on the region. Look at the key from an 18th century map of France, which has to give distances with NINE different definitions of a mile from different parts of France:
What if the USSR, and in the follow-up the People's Republic of China, regarded the metric system as "imperialist" and/or "capitalist" and either switches to Imperial again (unlikely, since it's even more imperialist), or develops their own system?
Then you have half the world and more than a third of World population out of Metric.
Then you have half the world and more than a third of World population out of Metric.
Thande
Donor
That reminds me. Weirdly, the Russian 'imperial' unit of distance, the verst (which predates the metric system by centuries) is coincidentally almost identical to a kilometre in length.
Sounds plausible, I mean if you look at the old Russian system, the inch and the foot match exactly those of the imperial system, so there's a starting point at the very least.
Thande
Donor
You could probably half-seriously claim that that is the reason why the attempted metric conversion just kind of petered out, if it got folded into eurosceptic attitudes at that point whereas previously the two things weren't connected.
Yes, but they'd wanted to join much earlier (but were stopped by De Gaulle), and IIRC the official system of the EEC was Metric. however, if the EEC/EU falls over early, then there's less reason for Britain to metricate.
hammo1j
Donor
IIRC was not the Metric System mandated as the official measurement system of the USA at some absurdly early point like 1800?
The problem with replacing the Metric system is that it is an inherently beautiful and ingenious system.
I did Physics in the switch over from imperial to SI (actually cgs) and the ease in performing calculations was a joy.
Of interest I think
cgs = metric system version I
SI = metric system version II
The problem with replacing the Metric system is that it is an inherently beautiful and ingenious system.
I did Physics in the switch over from imperial to SI (actually cgs) and the ease in performing calculations was a joy.
Of interest I think
cgs = metric system version I
SI = metric system version II
Thande
Donor
Don't make me go on my rant about how metric is probably the worst single possible system you could possibly conceive for doing scientific calculations with and almost seems deliberately designed to confuse people
I spend about six months trying to make students get that there aren't 100 cubic centimetres in a cubic metre or 100 cm-1 in a m-1 as it is..."but doesn't "centi-" mean a hundred?" they ask, and I have to reply, "yes, but this system was made up French people two hundred years ago in the five minutes in between being executed, don't expect it to actually make sense..."
Don't make me go on my rant about how metric is probably the worst single possible system you could possibly conceive for doing scientific calculations with and almost seems deliberately designed to confuse people
I spend about six months trying to make students get that there aren't 100 cubic centimetres in a cubic metre or 100 cm-1 in a m-1 as it is..."but doesn't "centi-" mean a hundred?" they ask, and I have to reply, "yes, but this system was made up French people two hundred years ago in the five minutes in between being executed, don't expect it to actually make sense..."
How would a better system look, then?