Re: SI &c., eh?

[Leigh Palmer <palmer@SFU.CA>]

At 18:19 -0700 8/29/99, paul o johnson wrote:

> I didn't have a lot of problems with dynes and
> statcoulombs and abcoulombs when I learned them as a student, but
> I'm not sorry to see them go. Why throw out grams, however, just
> because it's not MKS?. Physicists pride themselves on being logical
> and consistent, but they blew it there.

Grams? What's wrong with the mkg? Mg doesn't get used in this country,
by the way. They use "tonne" and abbreviate it T. How's that for
being SI incorrect?

I had a teacher for an E&M course in grad school, Bob Karplus. For
our own good he taught us in rationalized cgs units. Karplus was most
well known for his involvement with elementary education. I reckon he
had a goal of getting to Maxwell's equations by sixth grade.

> And while they were at it, why didn't they adopt the galileo = 1 m/s
> as the standard metric unit of speed?

I get to be the one to let you in on it: the "gal" is already a unit,
though a non-SI one. It is a unit of gravitational field strength
used by the geophysicists. The "gee" is also a unit of acceleration,
of course. I prefer m/s^s.

> > You can still use degrees Kelvin. Just think of them as *honorary*
> > degrees. No one feels saddled with an honorary degree.
>
> You make me feel a lot better. Frankly, I had intended to continue
> using degrees Kelvin even without your approval, but it's nice to
> know that one of my heroes supports my stand.

Ah, you're an unrecostructed curmudgeon. We'll have to get the metric
police on your case! I switched rather than fight.

Leigh