Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But the French were the first to adopt a metric system of measures during the French Revolution. Dividing by 10 was much easier than the old system, they argued.
That's not the reason the French adopted the metric system. The revolutionaries wanted to get rid of every vestige of the old ways, not just to lop off the heads of the monarchs and the nobles. They changed the days of the week, the months of the year, and the numbers of the years.
I don't know all the details of life in France in the 18th century, but I'm guessing there may have been multiple competing local systems of measure. It would have made just as much sense to unify under the English system of feet and miles, as it was to unify under the metric system. But somehow I can't imagine there was much enthusiasm for Frenchmen to use and English system.
The only thing I don't like about metric is wind speed being measured in m/s. That's potentially a lot of decimals being used there. Why not km/h for wind speed? That makes more sense
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sickandtiredofthis
Wind: mph
Aren't wind speeds generally given in knots (nautical miles per hour)?
I don't mind imperial or metric to be honest.. but the one thing that I find completely stupid is also how Americans say the month before the day when saying the date.. seems completely daft and confusing to me..
"August 14th" is shorter than saying "the 14th of August", the latter just sounds a bit too formal and unnecessary imo.
Thinking about it some more, it seems that when giving the general weather report on the TV or radio news, they give wind speed in miles per hour; but when giving the tide info and water temperatures, they'll also give wind speed in knots, particularly if it's high enough that small craft warnings are in effect.
As for measuring air temperature (i.e. the weather), the Celsius scale is not as useful as Fahrenheit. To paraphrase a graphic I've seen floating around
Fahrenheit
0 = really cold 100 = really hot
Celsius
0 = cold 100 = dead
Kelvin
0 = dead 100 = dead
From the point of view of a physicist, there's little advantage to quoting air temperature in Celsius. That it's metric means that people can feel superior for using it
I agree. When I've asked people why Celsius is so much better than Fahrenheit, they always state, "Because freezing water is 0 and boiling water is 100." Well, so what? How often are you taking the temperature of water? How does that help you when what you are measuring almost all the time is air temperature?
When people use the Fahrenheit scale, they have an intuitive grasp of the actual feeling of temperatures from 0 all the way to 100. And the ranges in groups of 10 are useful. Say the temps are in the 70s, or in the 90s, and I will know exactly what you mean.
In Celsius, it makes no sense to say the temperature is in the 20s. That's way too wide a range to be useful. You have to be precise all the time. Or, ask about Celsius temps of 60, 70, or 80 and people will just look at you blankly because they have no idea what those temperatures are like in real life. Numbers between 40 and 100 are basically never used. All those wasted numbers, just so you can say water boils at 100.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
