In standard it takes 1BTU to raise the temperature of 1 gallon of water by 1 degree F*. A gallon of water weighs 8.33lbs a gallon of milk weighs 8.6lbs, a gallon on concrete weighs about 20lbs. in standard we don’t really care as much that we have easily memorized relationships between the weights and volumes of water because that really only makes a difference when you are measuring water- and if your cake recipe calls for a linear measurement like “1.2 feet of water..” as opposed to a fluid measure- that’s kinda stupid. “The blue prints call for 14 liters of rivets Joe.”
“Oh crap Bob. These rivets only come marked in cubic centimeters!” “Don’t worry Joe. We’re using metric, so converting cubic centimeters of rivets into liters is made much easier than standard. All we have to do is calculate how much water a river is equal to and then we an easily...” We can see the comparison is a bit daft.
The “perfect” relationship between thermal energy and measures of water also isn’t so neat when we start actually getting into science. The energy required to bring liquid to a boil depends in part on factors like elevation, liquid temperature, open or sealed vessel.... and how long do you want to take to boil it? You can boil a gallon of water at 70 degrees F at sea level in an open container in one hour with 1178.6 BTU expended. To boil liquid you must impart thermal energy into it at a faster rate than said thermodynamics equalizes the temperature of the liquid. So you can “boil water” with less BTU much slower, or more BTU much faster.
You must remember that metric is based in standards- a specific gravity of water at a given altitude under given conditions. A specific block of material under specific conditions measured a specific way. The standard has changed and moved away from these “proofs” but at their core- metric measurements are based on how we can relate other objects to specific ones.
I’d also like to note the “BTU” is a “British Thermal Unit” and is not an American unit- like most standard or “imperial” measurements it is something we inherited. We continue to use traditional units for most things because there are hundreds of millions of dollars invested in these tools and systems and such, and over time metric is phasing in to replace them. But really it comes down to wether you prefer fractions or decimals. My father was a life long machinist and contractor/carpenter. He could convert board feet and inches and fractions faster than I could do it with a calculator- using just his head. For those of us who lack the intelligence and care to do this accurately (like me) metric is much easier. But I don’t know how “high and mighty” I’d be about using a system designed to make it so any idiot can use it as opposed to a system that requires a degree of competence to use.
...and then you have to account for metric is only correct while at sea level on planet earth; as tuned to gravitational pull of planet exactly this size. Meters are defined by speed of light counted in seconds ( where seconds are defined by the ground state oscillations of a caesium 133 atom). All, SUPER scientific, accurate and relatable as Hell (again, for anyone using scales & measures built to Earth standard).
by contrast, S.A.E. is a "practical" system of measure. A foot is a convenient length of measure compared to metric which divides up nto units either too small or too large to be practical for ... well, everyday life. A cup of water is a convenient volume to drink, a pound of stuff is pretty close to the threshold most people can sense in weight. S.A.E. is tuned to the human, metric is tuned to the planetary sciences. Each has a Fandom, and each hates the other for not appreciating the nuances of the other.
Temperature is the best example, by almost doubling the scale from Celsius to Fahrenheit, degrees of change get smaller, thus people can relate to what they FEEL rather than what the thermometer reads. Or is someone going to argue that saying its 40C outside makes it feel less hot than saying its 104F outside.
Star Trek will say they're more scientifically accurate, Star Wars will say they have more relatable characters and close enough is good enough when navigating hyperspace. At least we're not going to argue that Kelvin is technically most accurate and that 2001: A Space Odyssey was wayyyy too long to be cool even when it set the bar for space sciences; right?
Who supports Smoots in a Firefly universe?
Lmao. Well said, and funny. Firefly is awesome. Metric certainly has its places. I prefer metric tools, and in a lab on earth where conditions are controlled- go for it. Metric IS generally easier for an untrained person who is t mathematically inclined to pick up for most units of measure. Celsius is the metric unit I just don’t see any real benefit to- but if it works it works. It’s not like it’s that hard to convert most of the time. But the whole “metric is so much better....” or “the US is so behind using standard instead of metric...” The US is doing fine with what we have. Which really- is a mix of the two and we tend to use whichever suits a particular person or need.
2001 is a great movie just for the practicality of the "effects" and HAL. In all seriousness the entire first 40 minutes and the last 20 minutes are utterly pointless.
2001... I forgot that cake up. It was innovative and or ahead of its time in most regards when it was made. It still holds up well for effects and other things like some of the physics which they were going on educated guesses for a lot and got it right. The movie is dry for most of it, and paced slowly. It’s a lot of atmosphere and procedure. I think it was a good movie and still is- but while I hold it in high regard for its historical significance in cinema and fiction- I don’t think it’s worthy of the blind worship many throw on it. A well crafted film that isn’t for everyone and had had what were once novel ideas and visuals re visited enough times since that many people who haven’t seen 2001 have “seen it” in more contemporary form
Aye.... and sometimes when sharing it with a first time viewer you might find yourself in the sucky position of explaining the subtext... and jfc there's so much... which when you really think about it just makes it even more impressive it was pulled off in one movie with an entire hour basically wasted.
True. I like the film but it isn’t generally a film I just go: “I think I’ll rewatch 2001...” like I might with thee films. That’s not a knock to the movie- there are plenty of awesome movies that don’t make me feel like re watching them often or save for an occasion such as someone else who hasn’t seen them. They are just.... weighty... slow... ponderous.
You can, but the numbers are not a 1:1 ratio. So by learning such a more complicated ratio and being able to understand and translate quickly, which is a show of greater mental power!?
I kid, metric is far superior... but knowing both is great.
“Oh crap Bob. These rivets only come marked in cubic centimeters!” “Don’t worry Joe. We’re using metric, so converting cubic centimeters of rivets into liters is made much easier than standard. All we have to do is calculate how much water a river is equal to and then we an easily...” We can see the comparison is a bit daft.
Temperature is the best example, by almost doubling the scale from Celsius to Fahrenheit, degrees of change get smaller, thus people can relate to what they FEEL rather than what the thermometer reads. Or is someone going to argue that saying its 40C outside makes it feel less hot than saying its 104F outside.
Who supports Smoots in a Firefly universe?
I kid, metric is far superior... but knowing both is great.