If you aren't familiar with metre/meters and so on...

[Timo]

I'd like to point out the unit is called "Kelvin", not "degree Kelvin". So it's written 273K, not 273°K, and pronounced "273 Kelvin"

To take this to another level of nitpicking, the unit is actually kelvin. Always lowercase for the name, uppercase for the letter, whenever the unit is named after a person. Hence watts (W), amperes (A), kelvins (K), but liters (l) and meters (m).

As for the "compelling reason for going metric", it would probably involve the meter itself: units of dimension would be in need of international matching because hardware built to specific dimensions needs to be matched exactly. Temperature and liquid volume are more "by-the-bucket" things, and derived units such as force or electric potential would involve enough math to accommodate a conversion or two, but standardizing on a certain size of screw is straightforward enough, with obvious benefits.

(For the obligatory anecdote, one poor pilot was blown out of his cockpit but fortunately got stuck in the frame when the windshield separated due to incorrect screw size. The article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_5390 doesn't mention the metric-vs-imperial issue, but it applied to one of the screw types involved. Inability to acceptably buy or sell hardware abroad is a serious handicap where unique domestic standards of liquid volume measuring generally are not.)

Timo Saloniemi

 

[CorporalCaptain]

As for the "compelling reason for going metric", it would probably involve the meter itself: units of dimension would be in need of international matching because hardware built to specific dimensions needs to be matched exactly.

Hardware stores here sell both ISO and UTS for exactly that reason.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

Getting back to Trek: do people think that the metric system was communicated effectively in episodes?

Three moments stand out in my mind.

First, Georgi tells the computer to assume a holographic figure is the same height he is. He then says its. 1.7 m. I found that odd because, height being measure to the nearest centimeter, he should have said 1.70: more like 1 meter 70 centimeters rather than 1 and 7/10 meters.

Second, Quark, recounting his experience in the Klingon chamber, describes D'Ghor as being 1 meter taller. Given that the actor is (according to records) 5' 6", D'Ghor would have been 8' 9". Quark is exaggerating, but this would have turned his heroic tale into an obviously tall tale.

Third, Picard shares with Shinzon that he would have liked to be 2 meters tall. That would have made him 6' 7", about 9 inches taller. From what we see, his brother and father were about his size. it seems like unusual desire for a kid to say, I want to tower monstrously over my family. To cap it off, Shinzon wished he had been as tall, as if the Romulans shared the same system of measurement.

As much as the metric system is supposed to be precise, I think that these are rather clumsy applications. I guess it was too much for the writers (or a certain someone with the name starting with B) for Picard to say he wanted to be 1 meter 90 centimeters, or 190 centimeters,or even just 15-20 cm taller.

 

[T'Girl]

Picard wanted to make the basketball team in High School, but wasn't tall enough.

They have B-ball in France?

 

[WarpFactorZ]

Perhaps the next mass-market automotive fuel that comes online will be sold in metric units. That's certainly a possibility.

Actually, cars (not fuel) like the American-sold Prius actually ARE hardwired metric. They have to install conversion software to compensate (which, one would assume, is an extra cost not required in metric countries). For example, the exterior temperature reading on the Prius tends to jump by 2F whenever it changes, but this is because the actual temperature is read in C.

 

[Timo]

A few comments, not intended too seriously:

First, Georgi tells the computer to assume a holographic figure is the same height he is. He then says its. 1.7 m. I found that odd because, height being measure to the nearest centimeter, he should have said 1.70: more like 1 meter 70 centimeters rather than 1 and 7/10 meters.

I don't think it really works quite that way. Plenty of people do say they are "1.8 meters tall" when they want to hide the fact they really are 1.78 or 1.77 m tall. On the other hand, in my experience more people tend to say "178 cm" than "1.78 m". But there are national and regional preferences in the use of all units, and SI makes no exception.

Second, Quark, recounting his experience in the Klingon chamber, describes D'Ghor as being 1 meter taller. Given that the actor is (according to records) 5' 6", D'Ghor would have been 8' 9". Quark is exaggerating, but this would have turned his heroic tale into an obviously tall tale.

Then again, we do have the Klingon from "Gambit"... Inserting an obvious giant into a story isn't all that outrageous because giants do exist.

Third, Picard shares with Shinzon that he would have liked to be 2 meters tall. That would have made him 6' 7", about 9 inches taller. From what we see, his brother and father were about his size. it seems like unusual desire for a kid to say, I want to tower monstrously over my family.

Huh? He wouldn't know how tall his brother would become - but becoming significantly taller than one's father is certainly a worthy dream, and often achieved in the 20th century thanks to rapid improvements in nutrition. Sure, that's anachronistic for the 24th century where nutrition should have been optimal for centuries already, but Star Trek is built on anachronism anyway. All the Picards would be on the short side for modern humans, so I could see each and every one of them hoping for something better. Especially as Jean-Luc was something of an athlete in his early years (cf. the Academy marathon), and would no doubt have faced challengers much taller than himself in various competitions of his youth.

To cap it off, Shinzon wished he had been as tall, as if the Romulans shared the same system of measurement.

It would be sort of natural for there to exist an interstellar desire to be about two meters tall because that's "exclusively" tall for modern humans but not "impossibly" so and every species in Star Trek is modern human in practice anyway. So I see nothing wrong with Romulans having a concept of wanting to be 2.6 keegrans tall, and the UT translating that to wanting to be about two meters tall (especially in the context of the discussion). This sidesteps the issue of Shinzon being insincere in all his statements and even most of his actions, though.

As for the general point you were making, yes, often the Trek version of metrics sounds alien to a Nordic user of SI. But that doesn't necessarily mean it would be out of place for 24th century Starfleeters, as the preferred expressions and forms may change with time. Yet there are examples where the use of units fails on a more general level - there being too much or too little precision, or the magnitude being implausible (or then so surprising as to appear implausible long enough to snap the disbelief suspenders, even if it all works out in terms of general continuity). But there were such examples back in TOS regarding the use of feet, miles and ounces, too.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[LMFAOschwarz]

The Kelvin scale uses the same gradations as Celsius, but the zero point is absolute zero. Water freezes at 273°K and boils at 373°K.

Thank you!

I'd like to point out the unit is called "Kelvin", not "degree Kelvin". So it's written 273K, not 273°K, and pronounced "273 Kelvin"

Ever since I turned to art all those years ago, my once-ample science know-how has gone out the window. I guess "use it or lose it" really does happen...

 

[JJohnson]

70F is about 20C, my quick mental conversion method if I didn't need it exact is subtract 32 and half it.

Mine is a little simpler, subtract 30, and divide in half. Not exact but close enough for everyday.

If I need exact I use my phone to convert, there's a app for that (and most everything else).

Just as they have the right to throw out any politician stupid enough not to back a change to the metric system at election time. It works both ways.

And really this is the way it should be. Retaining our current system or switching to another is an important decision and in all honesty is one that doesn't have to be made in a hurry.

So there's time for the citizens to be presented with information, there to be a open debate and then for a nation wide consensus to develop.

Whether people elsewhere agree with the decision is irrelevant, ultimately it's our decision to make.

Just as it was in the late seventies.

I wish all the metric advocates would adopt France's Metric Revolutionary Calendar also, with decimal hours, minutes, seconds, and weeks. <sarcasm>Because it's so much better, magical, revolutionary, the best thing ever invented in the history of the world!!!! </sarcasm> That would be consistent.

<sarcasm>And everyone everywhere should just use iPhone/iPad/Mac because they are also magical, revolutionary and the best thing ever invented in the history of the world, and Steve Jobs is the prophet of Apple. </sarcasm> Same kind of obsessive superiority complexes from Apple fanboys to metric fanboys, at least from the outsiders' perspective. It's not attractive to tout yourself as superior, as it's abrasive to those you wish to convert.

Saying "I'm five eight" is easier and quicker than "I'm one point seven two meters tall."

As for Americans, yes, Americans have a healthy distrust of central authority because central authorities have proven themselves time and again to be abusive or peoples' rights and liberties and unresponsive to their needs and concerns. They dole out welfare easily, but are slow to fix waste and incredibly obvious abuse (VA Scandal? How many actual fellow men and women DIED?).

But, being on an internet forum, I don't expect to change anyone's mind here. But I hope everyone has a great evening and enjoys watching some Trek tonight! I'm getting my girlfriend to become a Trekkie, slowly but surely...saw Space Seed last night, and tonight, Wrath of Khan! (Real Khan!)

 

[Drone]

I was taught the metric system in school as well, and probably know it fairly well. It apparently isn't necessary for it to be the "official system" for the scientists within our society to employ it in their work.

Perhaps having two systems is a good thing, makes you think.

We should all live in a world where ounces and grams exist peacefully side by side.

Bravo!!! I don't think that one has to fear the effects of cognitive dissonance taking hold by being at least conversant in both. While I'm of a somewhat more distant vintage than you self-describe, I think that the steady exposure to the Metric in mass media, if nowhere else, over many years, has substantially worn away the Otherness of it not being the American custom and expectation. I may still reflexively conceptualize a point in the tried and true native lingua, but I'm not at all thrown for a loop, and don't find I need to hunker down into calcualator mental mode, when encountering its analogue in the wider world.

 

[MacLeod]

70F is about 20C, my quick mental conversion method if I didn't need it exact is subtract 32 and half it.

Mine is a little simpler, subtract 30, and divide in half. Not exact but close enough for everyday.

If I need exact I use my phone to convert, there's a app for that (and most everything else).

Just as they have the right to throw out any politician stupid enough not to back a change to the metric system at election time. It works both ways.

And really this is the way it should be. Retaining our current system or switching to another is an important decision and in all honesty is one that doesn't have to be made in a hurry.

So there's time for the citizens to be presented with information, there to be a open debate and then for a nation wide consensus to develop.

Whether people elsewhere agree with the decision is irrelevant, ultimately it's our decision to make.

Just as it was in the late seventies.

I wish all the metric advocates would adopt France's Metric Revolutionary Calendar also, with decimal hours, minutes, seconds, and weeks. <sarcasm>Because it's so much better, magical, revolutionary, the best thing ever invented in the history of the world!!!! </sarcasm> That would be consistent.

<sarcasm>And everyone everywhere should just use iPhone/iPad/Mac because they are also magical, revolutionary and the best thing ever invented in the history of the world, and Steve Jobs is the prophet of Apple. </sarcasm> Same kind of obsessive superiority complexes from Apple fanboys to metric fanboys, at least from the outsiders' perspective. It's not attractive to tout yourself as superior, as it's abrasive to those you wish to convert.

Saying "I'm five eight" is easier and quicker than "I'm one point seven two meters tall."

As for Americans, yes, Americans have a healthy distrust of central authority because central authorities have proven themselves time and again to be abusive or peoples' rights and liberties and unresponsive to their needs and concerns. They dole out welfare easily, but are slow to fix waste and incredibly obvious abuse (VA Scandal? How many actual fellow men and women DIED?).

But, being on an internet forum, I don't expect to change anyone's mind here. But I hope everyone has a great evening and enjoys watching some Trek tonight! I'm getting my girlfriend to become a Trekkie, slowly but surely...saw Space Seed last night, and tonight, Wrath of Khan! (Real Khan!)

Sure it might be easier to say you are five eight instead of 173cm but is some of that down to be used to one system or the other. But I was having a medical test the other week and despite beingh in the UK were we normally still say our height by feet and inches, they need my metric height.

The metric system using base 10 maths is a little easier to use then imperial. Now just as English is the defacto language of the world the same applies to metric it is the defacto measuring system used by something like 95% of the worlds population. So for example when someone says it was 60 today, most would read that as 60 celsius. So it can cause confusion if no scale was given. As has already been pointed out using different scales and/or coverting between them can lead to errors. The earlier mentioned Mars Climate Observer how many US tax dollars were in effect wasted due to someone using imperial instead of metric? Or the Gimli glider which ran out of fuel because of a conversion error in theory if not for the pilots skill that could have lead to a loss of life.

Is a jet plane superior to a tuboprop plane? In many ways it is, does that mean it is always superior? Perhaps not

Americans aren't the only ones to be have a distrust of central authority etc.. those things exists around the world.

 

[Drone]

I make no claims at being any kind of linguist. But I find the gist of what your expressing here to be gratutiously reductionist. You seem to suggest no particular redeeming qualities to be found in the divergence of the construction of languages throughout the world, the vast majority of which have already disappeared.


Even from a very rudimentary understanding as I have, it would seem that the significance contained in a certain tongue's idiomatic expressions for instance, often tells volumes about the history and culture of the people speaking it, even if such nuggets may have to be accreted in very small increments. The reference to inferior languages based on particularly tortuous syntactical or grammatical hierarchies might as easily obscure fascinating insights into peculiar patterns a certain population's geography, climate, or political conflicts act to shape their communications as simply betray an obdurate or perverse propensity for obscurantism.


Would you similarly consign the historic struggles to vitally maintain Gaelic, Basque, or the languages spoken in the Soviet dominated Baltic states as being personal, unimportant, or otherwise of no particular account? To say nothing of the speech of all those indigenous cultures in so many parts of the world almost completely put to the sword, the effort to recover some representation of which signifies an outsize proportion of salvaging a vestige of identity for those relative handful of descendants still amongst the living.


Perhaps I'm misinterpreting a more benign or satiric statement being made in light of the actual subject matter of the thread. If not, forgive me if I state my preference to be spared this iteration of a one world sentiment.

 

[scotpens]

First, Georgi tells the computer to assume a holographic figure is the same height he is. He then says its. 1.7 m. I found that odd because, height being measure to the nearest centimeter, he should have said 1.70: more like 1 meter 70 centimeters rather than 1 and 7/10 meters.

If your height is exactly 1.7 meters, there's no reason to add a superfluous zero.

 

[MacLeod]

First, Georgi tells the computer to assume a holographic figure is the same height he is. He then says its. 1.7 m. I found that odd because, height being measure to the nearest centimeter, he should have said 1.70: more like 1 meter 70 centimeters rather than 1 and 7/10 meters.

If your height is exactly 1.7 meters, there's no reason to add a superfluous zero.

I suspect rounding to be just as common in imperial i.e you might say you're five foot eight, but you might actually be five foot seven and three quarters.

 

[scotpens]

I suspect rounding to be just as common in imperial i.e you might say you're five foot eight, but you might actually be five foot seven and three quarters.

I used to be a fraction over six feet tall -- about six feet, one-half inch. But I always gave my height as 6'1".

However, now I'm 5'11". Like everyone does as they get older, I've shrunk a bit.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

First, Georgi tells the computer to assume a holographic figure is the same height he is. He then says its. 1.7 m. I found that odd because, height being measure to the nearest centimeter, he should have said 1.70: more like 1 meter 70 centimeters rather than 1 and 7/10 meters.

If your height is exactly 1.7 meters, there's no reason to add a superfluous zero.

Actually, the zero would not be superfluous: it would indicate the number of places to which the height was accurately measures. It would indicate that height was measured in centimeters, rather than decimeters. Indeed, I do not that in some countries, people would say that they are one-seventy, denoting one meter seventy inches.

It would be sort of natural for there to exist an interstellar desire to be about two meters tall because that's "exclusively" tall for modern humans but not "impossibly" so and every species in Star Trek is modern human in practice anyway. So I see nothing wrong with Romulans having a concept of wanting to be 2.6 keegrans tall, and the UT translating that to wanting to be about two meters tall (especially in the context of the discussion). This sidesteps the issue of Shinzon being insincere in all his statements and even most of his actions, though.

So either the UT has some sort of special context filter, or else Shinzon magically hit upon what is a very round number in another measuring system?

 

[T'Girl]

A question on the current subject, if we were face to face and discussing height I would (likely) simply say I'm "five six."

Now if using metric, would I really say "one hundred and sixty-seven centimeters," or just the shorter "one sixty-seven?" Or is that something that just isn't done?

 

[Shat Happens]

A question on the current subject, if we were face to face and discussing height I would (likely) simply say I'm "five six."

Now if using metric, would I really say "one hundred and sixty-seven centimeters," or just the shorter "one sixty-seven?" Or is that something that just isn't done?

Use one sixty-seven, you look taller that way

 

[Edward]

In Britain we have gradually switched from the older systems of pounds and ounces or feet and inches to the metric equivalent.
Both systems are still used.
We still use miles as a measure of distance, but I suppose we should convert to light years.

 

[Robert Comsol]

^^ What century are you from?

Bob

 

[iguana_tonante]

I wish all the metric advocates would adopt France's Metric Revolutionary Calendar also, with decimal hours, minutes, seconds, and weeks. <sarcasm>Because it's so much better, magical, revolutionary, the best thing ever invented in the history of the world!!!! </sarcasm> That would be consistent.

Yeah, that would be cool. I'd have no problem with that.

Same kind of obsessive superiority complexes from Apple fanboys to metric fanboys, at least from the outsiders' perspective.

There is no "outsider's perspective" in your argument. You just disagree. But of course you don't realize that.

It's not attractive to tout yourself as superior, as it's abrasive to those you wish to convert.

You mean, like you have been doing all your post? I don't wish to convert anybody. Conversions are exactly the kind of stuff I want to avoid.

Saying "I'm five eight" is easier and quicker than "I'm one point seven two meters tall."

Of course, nobody would say that (well, maybe except Geordi, it seems). In common parlance, you would say "I'm one seventy", which is not much different than "I'm five eight". The full expression ,as it's commonly used, would be "I'm one metre and seventy centimetres" which is verbose, but no more than "I'm five feet and eight inches tall".

A question on the current subject, if we were face to face and discussing height I would (likely) simply say I'm "five six."

Now if using metric, would I really say "one hundred and sixty-seven centimeters," or just the shorter "one sixty-seven?" Or is that something that just isn't done?

Uh? Aren't you Brazilian? How you don't know how to use metric measurements?