Talk:Metre/Archive 1

message: Perhaps we should have a page dedicated to the history of the metric system (itself rather fascinating).  From there, one might explain how and why the different measurements were chosen. --Fleeb
:Perhaps this page sould be Metric system. Jimp 10Oct05
::There is a History section in metric system. I know, I added a little bit to it, as well as the section of Goals which gives some background of why it was done the way it was.  --DevaSatyam 07:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a section on the Metric System as a Failed Experiment? Over 200 years later, it has failed to sweep the world. Maybe it's time to change back. Part of the resistance, I think, is that the units are so ludricrous--one ten-millionth the distance from the pole to the equator? Makes a neat definition, but what does that have to do with people? Up until that Michael Palin guy, that's a trip that no one had ever made. A pascal, supposed to be a unit of pressure, is so tiny that it's really a unit of vacuum. Centigrade/Celsius--so water boils at 0 and freezes at 100--no wait, that was Celsius's original definition, later reversed--why? Herr Fahrenheit was much more sensible: 0 is just about as cold as it gets, and 100 is about as hot as it gets--what could be more human? BillFlis 23:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you think what you propose would violate NPOV? Besides, you are factually wrong: The metric system is used exclusively virtually anywhere in the world. Just not in the states ;) Esthurin 22:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Warning - dont go for a barbeque at BillFlis's place, any meat will be dangerously under cooked. Markb 11:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History of the metric system

message: This page could do with some improvement.
Discussion moved to Talk:Units of measurement/Format of articles about units
Multiple talk pages (metre, volt, coulomb) were discussing formats of unit articles. The talk page of Units of measurement seems more appropriate. Hope that is ok. Bobblewik 17:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement, especially wrt prefixes 

message: Um, why does the Orders of magnitude section only go down from the meter? Shouldn't we list decameter, hectometer, kilometer, megameter, gigameter, terameter, petameter, exameter, zettameter, and yottameter too? --Angr/ 1 July 2005 06:12 (UTC)
:Of those, only "kilometer" is even remotely commonly used.  Unless there is something notable about a particular order of magnitude in terms of meters, it can easily be derived through the SI prefix article.  In particular, for extremely large distances, either scientific notation is used, or a larger unit altogether such as the astronomical unit, light year, or parsec is used.  Finally, the more esoteric units are already listed in the article Orders of magnitude (length).  --Dachannien 21:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orders of magnitude 

message: I always understood that a nanometer was the smallest known division of a meter. Now we have picometers, femptometers, attometers, zeptometers, and yoctometers. Also, I thought that a kilogram was the biggest meter measurement, but then we have megameters, gigameters, terameters, exameters, zettameters and yottometers. I've never heard those names before now! It would be impossible to divide beyond a billionth of a meter! That's the size of an atom! Is this some sort of joke? Scorpionman 01:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The extensibility of the metric system is one of its features.  Originally it only had multiplier prefixes in the range from a ten thousand (miria) to a thousandth (mili) in steps of ten because that was the range of most usual measures in those days. Nowadays we have extended the range of prefixes to several times that and we go in steps of thousands, we don't bother with prefixes for each intermediate power of ten.   Even if those quantities could not be measured (which the size of an atom can) or other units are more often used for those (like amstrongs, parsecs and lightyears) or we use scientific notation, the flexibility is there, within the system, to stretch to any size, current or future.--DevaSatyam 07:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  picometer? 

message: 1/299,792,458 Captain Jackson 04:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One metre is the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second. It's a definition. It was chosen to approximate the previous definition which in turn was chosen to approximate the one before that and so on until we get to the original definition which was one ten millionth of the distance from the North Pole to the Equator via Paris. Jimp 16:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the significance of this number again? 

message: The article says:
: It is not accidental or unrelated that the growth of science and technology grew hand-in-hand with the spread and use of the system, as the system utilises a series of suffixes related to multiples of ten and powers of ten, giving extreme ease of scaling and conversion, which being calculation intensive, are much more prone to error in less regularised systems.
This statement would be difficult to support and seems to be a personal opinion.  Perhaps a reference would be good.  Eric 10:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Growth of science and technology 

message: Centrx added a 1797 date for first recorded usage in English.  That is for this particular meaning.
In 1790, the first U.S. Secretary of State proposed to the House of Representatives a decimal system based on the foot.  In Jefferson's decimal system, a "metre" would have been a unit of volume, equal to 0.001 cubic foot or one cubic inch.  A "metre" of cool water would have weighed an "ounce" (1/10 of a pound), and an ounce of 11/12 silver would have been worth a "dollar"—which was already decimally divided before then.  Congress never acted on this proposal, or a less radical alternative eliminating eliminating variations in pounds and gallons without a complete shift to a decimal system.Plan for establishing uniformity in the Coinage, Weights, and Measures of the United States.  Gene Nygaard 14:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First recorded usage—trivia

message: Why is the metre taken as a preference for measuring in scientific calculations, in the same way that a second is and a kilogram? Is there a specific reason? Moitio (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Historical reasons, just to make talking about science easier. See SI - - 8472 16:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metre as a scientific measure 

message: I think it is best if there is no timeline and the information is included and part of the article. It would appear more like an encyclopaedic entry and would be more appropriate than to be enumerated. Lincher 04:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline inside the history 

message: Any reason to use these second-hand references rather than naming and linking to the actual source, that is the BIPM? -- Centrx 15:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources