Re: Just How Much is "A Cup" -- Really!

John Sankey (bf250@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:

: "The difference is, from my conversion reference, 4% - or if you
: want to be really picky it is 4.08%"

: Oops, the 1% was a mistype on my part.

: Going "metric" is not the same as SI - cf. our government's use
: of litres gasoline per hundred kilometers. (SI mandates
: multipliers only in the numerator, and factors of three in
: exponents e.g. km/l.) Did you ever try asking a Canadian mechanic
: to do a 5 Mm checkup or to fix that rattle at 12 m/s?

Interesting, and thank you.

Can you give me a URL where I can browse the background of "SI", as
incorporated into Canadian Law?
I had thought SI was System International [my Anglicized spelling] and
was a sort of International Standard which used the "metric" system of
decimal measurements.

Also, from what you have said above, I now ponder the 'information' that I
had previously been given, which indicated that "L per 100 Km" was
European and eastern Asian standard terminology.

: I'm in the middle of moving (Ottawa) and got packing costs quoted
: in $/cu.ft. plus $/lb. Our office paper is 8-1/2x11", legal 8-
: 1/2x14", photos 4x6" ...

...... which illustrates the U.S. influence resulting from our huge
'cross-border' trading.
..... but, unless it is a provincial standard rather than a national one,
your real estate property is specified in metric units, as are all the
other land survey measurements - just to name one example (without getting
into the 'hard' Sciences which ALL use metric / SI.)

: Metric is just as arbitrary as any other measurement system, the
: metre being originally a ten-millionth of the estimated length of
: the line of longitude going through an arbitrary point in Paris ....

I disagree. Even the original was not anywhere near as arbitrary as the
length of the pedal extremity (foot) of some ancient monarch, or the
amount of work that was calculated as being the 'average' for a draft
animal a few centuries ago, etc, etc.
..... and all of the metric measurements, based on constants rather than
variables, have increased in accuracy as the science and technology have
made these higher standards possible.

My "Websters Dictionary of the English Language" gives "arbitrary":
1. subject to individual judgement. 2. despotic or autocratic. 3.
capricious or unreasonable.
Nothing in the metric / SI fits the above!

: ..... France, the second 1/3600/24th of the average rotation of our
: planet at an arbitrary epoch, .....

Not an absolute constant, but far less variable than the 'yard'. :-)

: ...... the kilogram the mass of a litre of
: water at its maximum density (and still defined as the mass of an
: arbitrary hunk of metal in Paris)

Of course, if you use the word 'arbitrary' in the sense (not supported by
the dictionary) of meaning "chosen by human representatives chosen by the
people to maintain order and standards to civilization", all of
"civilization", as refers to differences between humans and animals, is
'arbitrary'.

: ... SI has far too many units
: for common use - lb/sq.in. is self-explanatory but try asking
: your neighbor what a kilopascal is :-( Its sole advantages are
: being decimal and everyone agreeing on the base units.

I think, you lost me here.
What does the fact that many of the SI units are still shunned by the
non-scientific minds in North America have to do with your suggestion that
there are "too many" of them?

And even the 'Pound" is a variable, depending on the gravitational force
in the location where it is being used. In the Imperial or non SI
measurement system, *mass is measured in "slugs", while "gram" is a unit
of mass and independent of gravitational attraction.

...... and, yes, I AM getting a bit pedantic here. :-)

However, my main point remains - once the system has been learned and put
into use by the great majority of the people, the "meter-gram-second" SI
is so far superior to the antique "inch-pound-second" Imperial / U.S.
standard, etc. that it is a poor showing for Canada to allow the present
confusion to persist.

<My opinion, obviously. Those who lack the initiative to learn SI will
continue to disagree - and continue the confusion.> :-)

: At least, thanks to the USDA, I could do all my nutrition in
: metric (kJ/100 g is not SI), but don't - I use calories!

And I have no objection to you making your free choice. I just dislike the
potential negative message that might be seen by those who may be ready to
complete the move to the simpler and more coherent system.

BTW, I am not one of the 'younger generation' who received their public
school education in SI / metric, although our son and daughter are, along
with our grandchildren. :-)

Ben F.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Balls of Napoleon
    ... > I just noticed that the size of the standard mass cylinder ... What's your hang up lately with/over this mass standard ... All physics ultimately boils down to comparisons ... All these measuring units are seamlessly linked together. ...
    (sci.chem)
  • Re: Balls of Napoleon
    ... > I just noticed that the size of the standard mass cylinder ... What's your hang up lately with/over this mass standard ... All physics ultimately boils down to comparisons ... All these measuring units are seamlessly linked together. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Random delay as a countermeasure to timing attacks
    ... weighted sum of n measurements with sum of absolute ... values of coefficients normalized to 1 has a standard ... for attack at all and it involves the application of only ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Balls of Napoleon
    ... >> I just noticed that the size of the standard mass cylinder ... > accepted artificial unit standard, the familiar kg, m, or sec. ... > All these measuring units are seamlessly linked together. ...
    (sci.chem)
  • Re: Balls of Napoleon
    ... >> I just noticed that the size of the standard mass cylinder ... > accepted artificial unit standard, the familiar kg, m, or sec. ... > All these measuring units are seamlessly linked together. ...
    (sci.physics)