3 ms·
Since this is getting downvoted a lot by "imperialists": I do not say that one cannot work scientifically using non-metric units, I'm just saying that it has a
by ThePhysicist 11y ago
Since this is getting downvoted a lot by "imperialists":
I do not say that one cannot work scientifically using non-metric units, I'm just saying that it has a non-scientific appeal since even in the US scientific publications normally use SI units (kg, m, s) since they are well defined and easy to calculate with.
Imperial units, on the contrary, are based on the length of body parts and sticks or the volume of some arbitrary measurement cup. Granted, the meter is a bit arbitrary as well (but at least based on the geometry of the planet), but the nice thing about metric units is that they can be converted easily: 100 cm = 1 m, 1000 m = 1 km. 1000 g = 1 kg. Try that with inches, feet, yards and miles.
So I really stay with my assessment that working in non-metric/SI units is contradictory to professional scientific work.
- AceJohnny2 11y agoGood thing he's a professional american cook, not a professional scientist.
- ThePhysicist 11y agoAgain, I'm not trying to devalue the work of the author here, I just say that his choice of units is non-scientific.
- andor 11y agobased on the length of body parts and sticks or the volume of some arbitrary measurement cup Let's not forget the weight of a stone! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_(unit) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_(unit)