Yes, it’s from a book called “Uncle John’s Bathroom Reader” and that book was resting on a closed toilet seat in a nation that only kind of uses the metric system in certain situations… however, you’d be surprised how much you can learn after a single visit to any local fast-food joint!
Love me some uncle john’s! Those page numbers are iconic, though I could immediately tell it was UJBR from the asterisks and writing style. Is this from “plunges into history”?
And the fact that Inch is not precisly defined. “Three grains of …” or “King’s thumb” is not a precise definition.
One ten millionth of a quarter of the circumference of some random ass planet somewhere isn’t either.
Precise definition isn’t really practically necessary. It’s only useful if you need to independently recreate a system in isolation. It’s much easier to have a reference material and just copy it. You can even build a reference length if you have something with known measurements.
Nowadays, the inch is defined in metric units anyway.
I use centimeters for certain things, but I call them “inches”.
In what context do people use metric units of length larger than a kilometer? 🤨
When measuring my dick.
Well, in Sweden we typically use miles (the matric variant, ie. 10km) to describe distance by car.
Megameter, gigameter, and terameter are occasionally used in astronomy and Earth science, though units like AU and light-year are usually preferred.
Here’s an example of megameter being used. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abd0312
Kilo just means 1,000, a kilo meter is just 1,000 meters. That last point is simply stupid conjecture by the author, and unlike the metric system, isn’t well thought out.
You could measure things in kilo miles if you want…
The paragraph on the meter should mention that their measuring error from the pole to the equator was .02%, which, without using satellites or even electricity, is fucking impressive.
.0002 × 10,000,000 = 2,000 metersSo they were off by 2 kilometers? Not bad, honestly…
That is impressive & a nice amendment on your part. Thank you for the added detail
So how the hell was it done? Long piece of rope? Hot air balloon? Or having a bird fly from one point to another and timing it?
Calculations. In 240 BCE, Eratosthenes used a stick. He basically found a place where the sun was directly overhead, and measured the shadow from a stick a known distance to the north of that location. He approximated the circumference of the earth to be 25,000 miles, which was off by 99 miles.
There’s a part in one of these Uncle John’s Bathroom Readers that has a paragraph about the dude with the shadow stick.
How do we know the conversion of whatever length unit he was using, in modern units?
Uhh, educated guesses. The stadion wasn’t exactly standardized. Most of the conversions I see put 10 stadia at 1 mile so that’s what I went with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadion_(unit)
The main thing is his methodology was precise.
Lots of triangulation and extrapolation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arc_measurement_of_Delambre_and_Méchain
It bugs me so much that they used the decimeter to define the liter and kilogram instead of using a meter to define a liter and gram
I think this snippet misrepresents the accuracy of the former definition of the metre. Sure, it’s no longer the distance from the equator to the pole (the modern definition uses the speed of light and the period of transition for a particular atom), but the difference is quite small. The circumference of the Earth around the poles (so 4 times the distance from equator to pole) is 40007.863 km. In Napoleonic times scientists had a pretty good idea what the shape of the Earth was.
Earth squeezes and stretches and wobbles & rotates. Time as we know it changes in length because it is the common nature of “time” to become chaos which then becomes order. Hylomorphism or Impermanence is to Entropy as measurement is to the fundamentals of size. Who is to say that the distance between two points should be constrained to the barriers of human existence & understanding. All we have is pictures & words, maybe a few trinkets that will become dust that becomes something else that attempts to quantify reality.
Earth squeezes and stretches and wobbles & rotates.
Sort of, yeah, Earth is a bit wider around the equatorial axis than around the polar one.
Time as we know it changes in length because it is the common nature of “time” to become chaos which then becomes order. Hylomorphism or Impermanence is to Entropy as measurement is to the fundamentals of size. Who is to say that the distance between two points should be constrained to the barriers of human existence & understanding. All we have is pictures & words, maybe a few trinkets that will become dust that becomes something else that attempts to quantify reality.
This reads like an unfortunate confluence of psychosis, psychoactive substances and LLMs.
While I can’t speak for my chemical imbalances, I can certainly assure you I am %100 not a fucking algorithm or some lame ass excuse for manufactured digital intelligence…
Sort of, yeah, Earth is a bit wider around the equatorial axis than around the polar one.
Thanks for explaining that a fucking ball is easier to squeeze at it’s widest part, genius.
What are you talking about? That isn’t what they said, and a ball doesn’t have a widest point. That’s more or less the definition of a ball.
The distance between the two poles is smaller than the distance from one side to the other following the equator. The earth isn’t quite a ball, it’s a bit squashed because of way it spins
Okay, a ball is equally wide but sometimes it gets squeezed and becomes tallish
Since it seems like you’re confused about the precise deformation of earth: the earth is wider around the equator. It’s not being squished but, rather, being flung apart by its spinning on its axis, like spinning pizza dough. Gravity just keeps it the same shape.
If you’re interested, look up “geodesy”
To agree on a unified measurement system for things like engineering, science and commerce across nations and cultures is a question of practicability though, not pseudophilosophical ramblings.
I say we measure everything with how angry it makes the French.
Uncle John’s bathroom reader!
I know this has nothing to do with the metric system, but I saw the toilet paper roll around the page number and got a surge of happy brain sauce due to the happy memories of all the copies I owned through the years: 2The metric prefix system is a fantastic invention, akin to the arabic number system. Honestly it’s surprising no one came up with it sooner… but (and I’m sure I’ll catch some flak for this) the metre is an awkward length - it’s too big for human scale measurements. The decimetre is not as bad but still not very good, and it’s also not commonly used. The centimetre has the opposite problem - it’s too small for the human scale but too big for precision work.
Don’t get me wrong, the horrible conversions between imperial units make the system unusable for me, but the unit lengths themselves are scaled to humans because they weren’t initially defined arbitrarily by some committee (why should the distance from the pole to the equator be used as the baseline for a measurement used by humans?). I think the inch and foot are great lengths to use on a daily basis, they feel quite natural.
What annoys me the most is that we could have had the best of both, since the foot and inch are only a factor of 12 apart, so we could have had a metre measuring about one foot and a decimetre measuring about an inch.
What? The whole idea of the prefix system is that it’s granular enough that you can describe any size as up to 100s (or 10s of common sizes) of any prefix.
Think of it as scales: Metres is the unit for things people sized (including kids), decimeters for things hand sized, centimeters for grit sized, etc.
Other scales are mostly an extension of the system: Kilometers is “away” sized, millimeters are tiny sized, and following the convention of 10s makes for easy to remember and translate conversions, although I’ll admit that they aren’t inherently more convenient than other measures.
Similarily: foot is stick sized, an inch is pebble sized, but the imperial system then doesn’t easily convert between other common human experiences. Talking of things seed sized becomes weird fractional math, figuring out how many steps it is to the next town (miles I’d argue is “trip” sized) gets weird. And when you need higher precision you end up in fractions of a larger unit rather than convenient ones.
The size of an atom is about 100 pikometers (10e-12 metres) and a molecule about a nanometer (10x the size). In US customary an atom is about 1/262144 (2^18) thou of an inch, and molecules about 1/2048 (2^11) thou of an inch. And if we want it compared to miles or feet, we’ll have to redo the calculations from scratch with loads of danger of messing up conversion numbers.
Besides, most of the benefit of the metric system is that the standardised scale prefixes makes it very easy to correlate all other physical constants. Speed of light is just under 300 km/s, which is about 300 m/ms or 300 mm/ns, or 200 miles/second which is about 1000 ft/ms or 10 in/ns (not to mention that rounding errors are larger in customary)
EtA: I do wish we had a base 12 math system though
Don’t misunderstand me, imperial sucks. I just wish the metric system had defined the metre to be smaller, that’s all.
See my other comments in this thread. I think most people would prefer if the common measurements they made with common units landed in the number range of about 0.2-10-ish. The human brain is good at visually estimating small groups so any unit system should try to lean into that and put the scale of commonly measured values in that range. Obviously as things get bigger you end up with tens or hundreds of units which start to lose semantic meaning, especially for quick estimations or relative comparisons, so you should start thinking of switching units at this point. Likewise when values get below about 0.1 they get hard to visualise, so most people switch units here.
My point being - I think the base unit of one metre is too large for most daily tasks - most things that are around a human scale end up being less than one metre, and I think the centimetre is too small - most things on the human scale end up being dozens of centimetres at least. Both fall outside that ideal range of ‘a small handful’ which the brain is good intuitively and subconsciously working with.
Why don’t you use the decimeter then? It’s 10 cm and sounds like it solves all your issues.
I think the inch and foot are great lengths to use on a daily basis, they feel quite natural.
Well that would be because you use them on a daily basis. I find meters and centimeters perfectly natural too, and would be hard pressed to think of a situation where the scale of inches and feet would be strictly better.
Nice try! I live in a metric country and use exclusively metric units.
How do you know how it feels to use imperial if you exclusively use metric? And daily!
Because I have had to work with American companies as part of my job for the past couple years. For the entirety of my personal life and the rest of my professional life I use metric. I’ll grant you I should have said ‘almost exclusively’ in my previous comment, but I think that’s just splitting hairs.
Literally because it scaled
Love me some Uncle John’s. I’d recognize that page number decorator anywhere!
My god, I commented almost this exact thing, word for word.
Looks at comment history
Oh wow, yeah you did! Great minds think alike, I guess!
Uncle John knows the correct way to mount toilet paper.
I have two bathrooms and do both.
The real question is; which do I use for my personal lou or WC or wash closet or bathroom or powder room or shitter?
If you don’t want to offend anyone, just leave the spool sitting upright on the lid
Or an apology note and a bucket full of water
Or three seashells
Someone so consistently responding to themselves is pretty entertaining.
If we were to make a meter today, I would think it would be a fraction of the speed of light.
And on that note, I honestly think a base 12 number system would be easier in the long run.
The meter is nowadays literally defined as the distance light travels in a certain amount of time, ie through the speed of light.
Heyyy I’ve got two of Uncle John’s books on the commode right now!
I have this book, its great! Some funny bullshit in there
Hmm… What We Did Before Smartphones. I should write a book so the Young’s dont forget ye olden ways.
I mean yeah, Metric scales.
Everything can be scaled. 1 can be two halves & 3 can be 12 .025’s. or we can all just agree that everything is based on various systems of measurement invented by humans who can hardly agree on their own origins and the purpose of their existence, or even the right to exist.
I don’t think anyone can in good conscience say that inches scale to small measurements. Sure, you can use them, but subtracting 8/1000 out of something that is 1 5/8 and noting the final length is just unwieldy.
You don’t need to get super existential about it, imperial was invented before we invented 0 and the decimal system and it shows. Sure the difference in basic units is irrelevant, no one cares what the meter or inch is defined as, the “superior” one is just what you’re used to and have an intuition for. But having units that relate to each other in round ways and can be easilt rescaled to the precision/range required can be nothing but a benefit
Maybe you’ve never heard of decimal inches. Anything under 1/32" people start using ‘thou’ as in thousandths of an inch.
Subtracting fractions is something you can learn. Children can even do it.
Measurement works because it’s accepted on it’s own terms.
If I were to believe that 1 is 2, it would be very difficult to explain that 2 is indeed double the normal amount of 1.
The same goes for some alien species that has too many or not enough fingers and doesn’t use prime numbers because of this.
I don’t personally believe that math is truly universal. But maybe I’m being existential ;)
I am genuinely interested in your take on how you believe the Peano Axioms could be shown to be false in this universe. They seem pretty darn universal, and have nothing to do with the number of fingers on your hand, or even how many dimensions you perceive.
Is someone really arguing that prime numbers are a thing because we have 5 fingers?
