Aceshardware

JasonB · Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 10:29 am Post subject:

who? wrote:

LOL power infinit!
1 tonne of water is not a cubic meter ... wow ... waoooooow! You just changed all the Einstein equation, especially the thermodynamic part ...

Don't be stupid.

Quote:

and I guess the etalon of the meter is not one meter ...

I don't know what "etalon" is, but the definition of a metre has changed over time, yes. The reason being that the definition adopted in 1791 (one ten-millionth of the length of the Earth's meridian along a quadrant through Paris) turned out to be based on a slightly incorrect measurement of the length of the meridian. Now, do you change the length of a metre as more and more accurate measurements of the Earth's circumference are made, or do you keep the length you have already based everything on and just accept that the Earth's circumference is not exactly 40 million metres? Since the length was initially arbitrary anyway, the sensible decision is to maintain "backwards compatibility" and sacrifice the idealised definition of its length.

Quote:

ask yourself, who invested the metric system is the inventor of the meter ... where is the 1st Meter? who did invent it?

In 1790 the French National Assembly decided that the length of a metre would be equal to the length of a pendulum with a half-period of one second. This is exactly the definition proposed by John Wilkins over 100 years before, and arrives at a value that happens to be 0.99695 of today's metres long. (A year later they changed their minds and decided on the definition given above, because the period of a pendulum varies slightly depending on where you are. These days it's defined as the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second.)

The name "metre" derives from the Greek metron, "a measure". John Wilkins work, where he described his metric system, was translated into Italian in 1675 as "metro catholico".

At least three people (possibly independently) proposed metric systems with all the key ingredients of today's system before the French National Assembly decided to adopt it.

Quote:

When do you get the Nobel price?

For what, pointing out your mistakes? They don't give them away that easily.

Quote:

who?
PS: this is my personal opinion.
(1 tonne of water is not a cubic meter ... look at the digit change on the adjustement you are talking about ... and rethink your claim if you are reasonable.)

My claim was, and I quote: "1 cubic metre of water is not exactly 1 tonne. It used to be defined that way but no longer is and is now only approximately the same."

The link you yourself gave states: "Originally, units for volume and mass were directly related to each, with mass defined in terms of a volume of water. Even though that definition is no longer used, the relation is quite close at room temperature and nearly exact at 4 °C."

It's hard for me to tell, but your last comment above seems to indicate that you actually know that they are not exactly the same. So, to you, it would be "reasonable" for me to lie and claim they are exactly the same when they are not? Would you like me to lie and claim the Earth's circumference is exactly 40 million metres as well?

They were exactly the same because that used to be the definition of those units. It no longer is. I suggest you learn to live with it.

Gipsel · Joined: 10 Sep 2007 Posts: 15 Location: Rostock, Germany

slacker wrote:

who? wrote:

Why choosing water? because it is one of the only compound that have a thermo dynamic tripple point of entropie.

Virtually every element and simple molecules/compounds have triple points. The only problem is that the points exist at extreme temperatures, pressures, volumes, or all three.

Actually, helium is the only element not having a triple point. It is just because it doesn't get solid even at zero Kelvin (only with 25 atmospheres pressure). There is simply no solid/gas coexistence line in the phase diagram.

who? · Joined: 01 Sep 2007 Posts: 531

JasonB wrote:

who? wrote:

LOL power infinit!
1 tonne of water is not a cubic meter ... wow ... waoooooow! You just changed all the Einstein equation, especially the thermodynamic part ...

Don't be stupid.

Quote:

and I guess the etalon of the meter is not one meter ...

I don't know what "etalon" is, but the definition of a metre has changed over time, yes. The reason being that the definition adopted in 1791 (one ten-millionth of the length of the Earth's meridian along a quadrant through Paris) turned out to be based on a slightly incorrect measurement of the length of the meridian. Now, do you change the length of a metre as more and more accurate measurements of the Earth's circumference are made, or do you keep the length you have already based everything on and just accept that the Earth's circumference is not exactly 40 million metres? Since the length was initially arbitrary anyway, the sensible decision is to maintain "backwards compatibility" and sacrifice the idealised definition of its length.

Quote:

ask yourself, who invested the metric system is the inventor of the meter ... where is the 1st Meter? who did invent it?

In 1790 the French National Assembly decided that the length of a metre would be equal to the length of a pendulum with a half-period of one second. This is exactly the definition proposed by John Wilkins over 100 years before, and arrives at a value that happens to be 0.99695 of today's metres long. (A year later they changed their minds and decided on the definition given above, because the period of a pendulum varies slightly depending on where you are. These days it's defined as the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second.)

The name "metre" derives from the Greek metron, "a measure". John Wilkins work, where he described his metric system, was translated into Italian in 1675 as "metro catholico".

At least three people (possibly independently) proposed metric systems with all the key ingredients of today's system before the French National Assembly decided to adopt it.

Quote:

When do you get the Nobel price?

For what, pointing out your mistakes? They don't give them away that easily.

Quote:

who?
PS: this is my personal opinion.
(1 tonne of water is not a cubic meter ... look at the digit change on the adjustement you are talking about ... and rethink your claim if you are reasonable.)

My claim was, and I quote: "1 cubic metre of water is not exactly 1 tonne. It used to be defined that way but no longer is and is now only approximately the same."

The link you yourself gave states: "Originally, units for volume and mass were directly related to each, with mass defined in terms of a volume of water. Even though that definition is no longer used, the relation is quite close at room temperature and nearly exact at 4 °C."

It's hard for me to tell, but your last comment above seems to indicate that you actually know that they are not exactly the same. So, to you, it would be "reasonable" for me to lie and claim they are exactly the same when they are not? Would you like me to lie and claim the Earth's circumference is exactly 40 million metres as well?

They were exactly the same because that used to be the definition of those units. It no longer is. I suggest you learn to live with it.

well, one more british version of history. . . ex colonie of england still have hard time to stop listening brtis propaganda... still playing cricket?

believe what ever you want ... especially copying and pasting internet page ... lol FYI, there are green man that lended on Mars in area 51 if you listen to it.

sorry, but the metric system is a french effort, there is nothing you can change to it, We made it happen.

[edit]
in the ISO system, the principal of thermo dynamics does not really care of the temperature, and the ISO system is 100% accurate.
you are just doing the regular argue for argue, and repeat the regular brits FUD ...

here is the source of the FUD: http://www.metric.org.uk/press/releases/pr070712.htm
The UK metric association!! WTF !!!!

recent discovery, that we can not back up is saying that ... bla bla bla...
Since you are from an ex Brits colonie, you are train since very young to accept and bend!
Open your mind Neo!

Pat Naughtin says, ' In modern terms this is equivalent to 997 millimetres or quite close to the modern metre' .

That is just not a meter!!!!!

let s do like the brits, 1 stadion is almost 185.4 meter, greek are use the see stuff in BIG scale, but it you divide by 185, you almost get a meter, you get 1.002 meter ... so the greek, and especially alexander the great invented the meter ... lol!
(notice that Australia and fairly involve into this FUD)

who?

JasonB · Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 6:17 pm Post subject:

who? wrote:

well, one more british version of history. . . ex colonie of england still have hard time to stop listening brtis propaganda... still playing cricket?

Whoa, hold back on those cutting insults, Francis. Heh. I guess if you're French it's a bit hard to be too harsh -- glass houses and all that.

Quote:

believe what ever you want ... especially copying and pasting internet page ... lol FYI, there are green man that lended on Mars in area 51 if you listen to it.

Actually, a lot of the information I presented is also available on the links you provided. You should have said which bits of your references were to be read and which bits were to be ignored.

Quote:

sorry, but the metric system is a french effort, there is nothing you can change to it, We made it happen.

I said in my first post that the French deserve credit for being the first to implement a metric system, no doubt about it. It doesn't matter who thought of the idea -- hell, the Poms thought of it 120 years earlier and are still resisting that "foreign" measuring system. Idiots.

But you should try not to invest so much in it, Francis. The French have other things to be proud of. The food is great, for a start. And... Well, the food is great.

Quote:

in the ISO system, the principal of thermo dynamics does not really care of the temperature, and the ISO system is 100% accurate.

No idea what you're getting at here. Hopefully you're not about to prove evolution is false because it violates the second law of thermodynamics.

Quote:

you are just doing the regular argue for argue, and repeat the regular brits FUD ...

I'm just pointing out a few of your errors, that's all. As usual, you resort to ad hominems when confronted. ("Ex colony"? Heh.)

Why do you say that it's FUD? Do you have any evidence that John Wilkins didn't write that book in 1668? Or do you disagree that what he describes is a metric system? Or do you just not like the implication and so you call it FUD without having any evidence to contradict it?

Quote:

here is the source of the FUD: http://www.metric.org.uk/press/releases/pr070712.htm
The UK metric association!! WTF !!!!

I hadn't seen that one. Note the tone of the article -- it's saying "Wake up you stupid Brits who resist metrication because you think it's "foreign", it's actually British!". That's actually not a good reason to adopt it, but apparently they think it'll help.

Quote:

Since you are from an ex Brits colonie, you are train since very young to accept and bend!
Open your mind Neo!

You know very little about Australia, apparently. This comes as no surprise.

Quote:

Pat Naughtin says, ' In modern terms this is equivalent to 997 millimetres or quite close to the modern metre' .

That is just not a meter!!!!!

Heh, suddenly you're obsessed with differences. Before you were annoyed when I said two quantities that were slightly different were not exactly the same.

The important point is not the value, however, but the fact that the method he proposed -- the length of a pendulum with half-period of one second -- is the same one that the French originally adopted to define the length of the metre. The method they adopted next -- based on the meridian -- was considered by Wilkins and dismissed as being impractical. 120 years later the French decided to do it that way anyway for their second attempt, put a lot of effort into measuring the meridian, and ended up with a value that was slightly wrong -- not surprising, when you think about what is involved. Today we use neither.

BTW, I find it odd that you consistently use the spelling native to (what you originally claimed was) the only country that has not adopted the metric system. Why don't you call it "metre"?

who? · Joined: 01 Sep 2007 Posts: 531

one of my best friend is Aussie :) I know a lot about them ... I actually saved him from the propaganda.

I am just trying to see what happen when you start speaking like the nVidia boss ;) (kidding!!! )

who?
PS: this is my personal opinion, and people who know me knows that all of those claims are made with a smile, I am a provocative person, on an humourous tone, never take it personal :)

JasonB · Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 6:30 pm Post subject:

who? wrote:

let s do like the brits, 1 stadion is almost 185.4 meter, greek are use the see stuff in BIG scale, but it you divide by 185, you almost get a meter, you get 1.002 meter ... so the greek, and especially alexander the great invented the meter ... lol!

Hmm, you still editing that post?

Anyway, for your analogy to be correct, the French would have had to use the same method at one point to define the metre. If they had, and if the Greeks had proposed a measuring system with weight defined similarly and the use of prefixes to denote powers of ten, then I would have said the Greeks invented it. But they didn't, so I won't.

Quote:

(notice that Australia and fairly involve into this FUD)

It's only FUD if it's not true. Which part is false?

who? · Joined: 01 Sep 2007 Posts: 531

There are no prove of the brits claim, they vould not show the notes of the dude.

that remind the clement ader case that say that you did not fly if you break your legs when lending. . .

who?

JasonB · Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 1:48 am Post subject:

who? wrote:

There are no prove of the brits claim, they vould not show the notes of the dude.

Do you mean his book? You can download a scanned version of the relevant portion (interleaved with a modern "translation", although there isn't really much translation) from http://www.metricationmatters.com/articles.html. (Grab "John Wilkins translation full version", it contains the original pages as well.)

Page 4 of the PDF (page 191 of the original) paragraph 3 talks about subdividing a "degree upon the Earth" (which the French ultimately chose to make their prototype metre bar -- after spending seven years trying to determine the length of the meridian) and using mercury, but dismisses both -- the first because it wasn't practical (in fact, the French were only able to do it using a new invention at the time), and the second because it was highly variable. Paragraph 4 onwards talks about using a pendulum and credits the idea to a Dr Christopher Wren. This was the method the French originally chose before switching to the meridian definition the following year (presumably because the period of a pendulum varies; but then, it could have been defined as the period of a pendulum in Paris, just as the meridian was).

Page 6 of the PDF (page 192 of the original) paragraph 2 uses this length to define the "Standard" (his name for metre) and then goes on to define a range of other lengths in terms of powers of 10. One difference was that he was content to re-use existing names, redefining their lengths, rather than invent new ones, which I think would have caused confusion.

The next paragraph defines a "Bushel" as a cubic Standard and then goes on to define weights in terms of that quantity of distilled rainwater, similarly to the way the kg was originally defined.

After that he talks about decimal currency.

The only real difference between what he describes and the metric system the French ultimately adopted was his preference for existing names rather than prefixes attached to new names. The French way is better. There was also a difference of opinion about how best to define the metre, with the French initially adopting the method he advocated but then switching to a method he dismissed, but then they had the advantage of 120 years of further technological improvement, and even then it wasn't an easy task.

who? · Joined: 01 Sep 2007 Posts: 531

JasonB wrote:

who? wrote:

There are no prove of the brits claim, they vould not show the notes of the dude.

Do you mean his book? You can download a scanned version of the relevant portion (interleaved with a modern "translation", although there isn't really much translation) from http://www.metricationmatters.com/articles.html. (Grab "John Wilkins translation full version", it contains the original pages as well.)

Page 4 of the PDF (page 191 of the original) paragraph 3 talks about subdividing a "degree upon the Earth" (which the French ultimately chose to make their prototype metre bar -- after spending seven years trying to determine the length of the meridian) and using mercury, but dismisses both -- the first because it wasn't practical (in fact, the French were only able to do it using a new invention at the time), and the second because it was highly variable. Paragraph 4 onwards talks about using a pendulum and credits the idea to a Dr Christopher Wren. This was the method the French originally chose before switching to the meridian definition the following year (presumably because the period of a pendulum varies; but then, it could have been defined as the period of a pendulum in Paris, just as the meridian was).

Page 6 of the PDF (page 192 of the original) paragraph 2 uses this length to define the "Standard" (his name for metre) and then goes on to define a range of other lengths in terms of powers of 10. One difference was that he was content to re-use existing names, redefining their lengths, rather than invent new ones, which I think would have caused confusion.

The next paragraph defines a "Bushel" as a cubic Standard and then goes on to define weights in terms of that quantity of distilled rainwater, similarly to the way the kg was originally defined.

After that he talks about decimal currency.

The only real difference between what he describes and the metric system the French ultimately adopted was his preference for existing names rather than prefixes attached to new names. The French way is better. There was also a difference of opinion about how best to define the metre, with the French initially adopting the method he advocated but then switching to a method he dismissed, but then they had the advantage of 120 years of further technological improvement, and even then it wasn't an easy task.

you are arguying about the difference between "being there" and "Almost there".

995cm is not a meter.

who?

lux_interior · Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 239

JasonB wrote:

But you should try not to invest so much in it, Francis. The French have other things to be proud of. The food is great, for a start. And... Well, the food is great.

Sorry, you forgot the wine !

JasonB · Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 3:56 am Post subject:

who? wrote:

you are arguying about the difference between "being there" and "Almost there".

995cm is not a meter.

Are you serious?

Let me spell it out:

John Wilkins proposed three different methods for establishing a new unit of length, which he called the "Standard":

1. Subdivide the meridian by some factor. This method he dismissed as being so difficult as to be unpracticable.

2. Use the length of a column of mercury. This method he dismissed as being too dependent on local conditions and the weather (i.e. atmospheric pressure).

3. Use the period of a pendulum. This was the method he advocated.

The French initially adopted the third method. If they had stuck with it then John Wilkins' "Standard" would have been exactly a metre long because the definition was the same.

The following year the French decided to change the definition to the first method. This resulted in a different length of the metre. Coincidentally they happen to be almost the same length -- they could have ended up completely different in length because there is no a priori reason why a pendulum with half-period of a second should be so close in length to 1/10,000,000 of the quarter meridian, and the fact they are within 0.3% of each other is just an interesting twist of fate. The important thing is that the French initially used one method mentioned by Wilkins, and then switched to another method mentioned by Wilkins. Neither method was invented by them -- in fact, they weren't even invented by Wilkins, because he talks about them both as if they are well-known ideas during his day. (His contribution seems to be the idea of tying them all together into a metric system.)

It is worth pointing out that a few years after adopting the meridian method, the French had measured the meridian and used the calculated result to create a prototype metre and changed the definition again to be "whatever length this bar has", which turns out to be a tiny bit too short due to the inevitable measurement error of the meridian (but still impressively close). The definition of the metre changed several more times since then until now it is defined in terms of the speed of light in a vacuum. If you reject Wilkins' claim to fame then you must also reject the French one was well, because we no longer use the definition that the French did!

The kilogram is still defined as "the weight of a prototype kilogram locked away in a vault", but was originally defined in terms of the weight of a volume of water, tying the definition of the kilogram to the definition of the metre -- exactly as Wilkins' suggested.

It is pretty clear that when the French devised the metric system they drew on well-established ideas that had been promoted for over a century. Only to you does there seem something wrong with this -- to me, this is just smart, because you don't want to make a sweeping change like this without giving enough time for the potential flaws to be identified. I am glad that the metric system we use today was defined by people who weren't as afflicted by the "Not Invented Here" syndrome as you appear to be.

who? · Joined: 01 Sep 2007 Posts: 531

OK ... the Brits invented the Smucks, it is 0.995M, the french invented the metre, the Kilogram, and all the other equations of ISO.

so, One Smuck = 0.995 meter

Bottom line, "metre" is used, and the Smucks is not.

because you can say what ever you want, but 1 cube Smucks is not a tonne of water ... it is only 0.985074875 of a tonne, you are missing 2 kilogrammes, the entire Smucks system is smuck ... broken, Casser, KO, Kapout!

This is hard fact.

Who?
PS: read this as humourous.

JasonB · Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 3:03 am Post subject:

who? wrote:

PS: read this as humourous.

Evidently the French did not invent humour and have yet to figure it out.

who? · Joined: 01 Sep 2007 Posts: 531

JasonB wrote:

who? wrote:

PS: read this as humourous.

Evidently the French did not invent humour and have yet to figure it out.

OFF TOPIC.

What a Colonialist answer, only YOUR humous is right! right?
the time of the Commonwealth is over ... Wake up, being different is good!

Who?
this is my personal opinion.

JasonB · Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 4:09 am Post subject:

who? wrote:

OFF TOPIC.

What a Colonialist answer, only YOUR humous is right! right?
the time of the Commonwealth is over ... Wake up, being different is good!

Who?
this is my personal opinion.

It must be hard to walk straight with a chip on your shoulder that large.

If you really want to find things to be proud of and things to denigrate others for that might have some relevance, how about looking for things within the last century rather than things before my grandparents were born? Oops, I forgot -- maybe not. :-) You'd better cling to the metric system and my country's origins... ;-)