Re: Measurements revisited

On Sun, 11 Oct 1998 22:28:22 -0400, Nik Taylor <fortytwo@...> wrote:

>I've been thinking, various people have discussed their con-measurement
>systems.  However, most of them are based on our measuring system, in
>terms of the units used.  For example, Herman Miller (?) had a complex
>system based on physical constants which was nonetheless identical to
>the SI, in terms of what was considered basic.  For example, if you want
>to be really different, you could make distance a derivative of speed
>and time, instead of a basic unit.  Or, why make the ampere a basic
>unit?  Why not make it a derivative of *charge* and time?  To me, that
>makes more sense.  Note that I'm not attacking the metric system, I'm
>just throwing out ideas for a different system.
Actually, Jarrda does use charge as a basic unit (specifically the charge
of the electron), and there are a few other differences from SI. But I
haven't gone into much detail describing the Jarrda system, so you might =
be
thinking of someone else's system.

Distance makes more sense to me as a basic unit rather than deriving it
from speed and time, because of the relative ease of measuring distance.
Mass can be measured with a balance scale, but it can also be calculated =
as
force divided by acceleration, using a spring to measure force.