A history programme at 5.30pm on Easter Sunday on Radio 4 dealt with the history of the Dundee Jute Mills and their accompanying chimneys.

The height of the chimneys was given in feet by the commentator.

Immediately after he had spoken about the height of the chimneys, the commentator was heard to say the following, reproduced verbatim and without further comment:


"Let's not complicate the beautiful simplicity of these chimneys by converting their heights into metres."

There is more than one interpretation that an be put on this, but to be fair to the presenter I'd say that, even as a pro-metric, I can see his dilemma.

If the height of a chimney was recorded as say 50 feet, then a pecise coversion would be 15.24 m.

This is not very elegent. The trouble is that he would have fell into the trap many people tend to who don't quite understand the issue of accuracy and precision.

For the purposes of the program 15 m would have been OK. No more compicated than 50 feet.

I think the commentator was implying that he sees the imperial system as natural and the metric system as scientific. When you look at something that is artistically beautiful and attempt to deal with it scientifically, rationally, and logically, you may ruin its intrinsic beauty.

I guess he could have said "15 and a quarter metres" for any visiting Canadian who would still understand it better in feet?


Erm.....

The universe is a wonderful and fascinating place. It is full of beauty.

Scientists study it. Try telling a pure scientist that what they do is irreverent.

Mathematicians see beauty in what they do. It too is a fascinating world.

Being rational is absolutely essential to the pursuit of scientific investigation. But that doesn't mean that such inquiry lacks a perception of things beautiful. Learning the fascinating secrets of nature is what drives the pure scientist or mathematician to make discoveries.

Human systems of measurement are humble by comparison.

Yes - but you look at what you've put there and I'm reminded of one of the best natural measurements that exists.

Better than the "foot" or "inch", "yard" etc - even more natural than that. - I'm talking about a "lightyear"

The metric system is completely unnatural. It is not based on the Earth or man in any sensible way (or even natural constants). It is a pile of rubbish.

Hmmm, "a pile of rubbish"?

Was this one of those "posts after going out with the lads on a large one" type posts?

lol, no. Steve, as I have stated many times before, the metric system is not natural in any sense. It was supposed to be a fraction of the Earth's circumference (they should have chosen the Earth's radius, but oh well....). The thing is, they used the newly invented (and straight away disregarded)_ centesimal system to get the length standard.. the metre. However, we use the sexagesimal system- always have, always will. Thus, a unit equal to roughly 73 inches would have made far more sense, not this metric cop. The metre is based on a fallacy. Therefore, the entire system is based on a fallacy (the kilogram is derived fro mthe mass of a cubic decimetre of water, the litre is a cubic decimetre, the newton is based on the metre and the second [get that!!! Sexagesimal units for time, but not for angles- go figure!!], and all other units are likewise thus based o nthe lie that is the newton and metre etc.

What a load of cods-wallop !

I can't believe that you're trotting out all that "the metre's rubbish 'cos it's based on the circumference of the earth and anyway they measured it wrong and blah blah blah......"

The metre is an arbitrary unit. SO WHAT ?
The Kilogram is an arbitrary unit. SO WHAT ?

The yard and pound are arbitrary units.

The second is also an arbitrary unit !

All measurement systems are arbitrary and boil down to an attempt by mankind to impose order on the chaos of nature. The universe doesn't know how it is meant to behave and there is no such thing as a "natural" measurement system (no matter how hard some people try to come up with one).

If you want a consistent system do you go for the one that limits itself to seven units "picked out of a hat" with everything else derived logically from these units or do you go for the one where everything is made up willy-nilly (and also happens to totally miss out electrical units) ?

Face it Bryan. SI is the only game in town.

If the metre is based on a fallacy all I can say is, at least it’s based on something !

I am really tired, so how about this for an arguement:





no. I am sure Tny will come along and tell you about how English units more closely tie in with the natural world any minute now....

Re: Dundee Chimneys April 16 2004, 9:36 PM

It always amazes me when people say something is UN-natural. So where does it come from then? Did it fall out of the sky, has some extraterrestrial forgotten it on his last visit. Hardly! Anything we do, never mind how vile, must be "natural". Afterall, we are natures creatures.

Jeesh! I can't believe this old fella!

Forget names for a second - A stick as long as a metre is not as "natural" as a stick as long as a foot to make rough measurements in.

But then you'd know that - being blessed with an imperial only education.